Sankara v. Martuscellor
- Kevin Fox
- 1:18-cv-06308
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sankara v. Martuscellor, the court denied the habeas petition and venue motion, refused an appeal certificate, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ahmadou Sankara was affected by the denial of his habeas petition, motion to change venue, certificate of appealability, and fee-free appeal status. Daniel F. Martuscellor, Jr., and the other named respondents were parties to the closed case.
What happened
Ahmadou Sankara petitioned for a court order concerning his detention and asked to move the case to another venue. The judgment also names Daniel F. Martuscellor, Jr., and other respondents.
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Fox’s recommendations in full. It denied Sankara’s habeas petition and motion to change venue, but the provided judgment does not explain the recommendations’ reasoning.
The court closed the case, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment does not identify the district judge; it is dated November 19, 2020.
The detailed version
- Sankara v. Martuscellor · No. 1:18-cv-06308
- Kevin Fox
- Nov. 19, 2020
Background
Ahmadou Sankara was the petitioner, and Daniel F. Martuscellor, Jr., and other respondents were named in the case. The judgment states that Sankara filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a request for court relief concerning detention—and a motion to change venue, meaning to move the case to a different court location.
Ruling
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Fox’s recommendations in full. It denied Sankara’s habeas petition and denied his motion to change venue. The judgment refers to a separate Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 19, 2020, but that document is not included in the provided text, so the basis for denying the petition is unclear.
The court also stated that Sankara had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied and therefore would not receive a certificate of appealability, which is required for certain habeas appeals. The court further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The case was closed.
Disposition and scope
The judgment clearly denies both the habeas petition and the motion to change venue. Because the provided text does not say whether the habeas petition was denied on the merits or on a threshold ground, the classification reflects the absence of merits analysis in the supplied judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.