Sankara v. Martuscellor
- Alison Nathan
- 1:18-cv-06308
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Sankara v. Martuscellor, Judge Nathan denied Sankara’s motion to reopen the judgment, resubmission and counsel requests, and fee-free appeal status.
Ahmadou Sankara’s requests to reopen the judgment, resubmit his motion, obtain appointed counsel, and appeal without paying filing fees were denied. The order also directed court staff to mail him a copy.
What happened
Ahmadou Sankara asked the court to set aside its judgment under Rule 60(b)(4)–(6), resubmit an earlier motion, and appoint a lawyer. The court had denied his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2020 and denied an earlier motion to set aside the judgment in 2022.
Sankara’s new filings did not identify extraordinary circumstances that would justify reopening the judgment. He also did not show that his claims were likely to have legal merit, so the court denied his request for appointed counsel.
In Ahmadou Sankara v. Daniel F. Martuscellor, Judge Alison J. Nathan denied all of Sankara’s requests and denied fee-free appeal status, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sankara v. Martuscellor · No. 1:18-cv-06308
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 14, 2023
Background
Ahmadou Sankara submitted filings that included a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)–(6) to set aside the judgment, a request to resubmit the motion, and a request for appointment of counsel. The court had denied Sankara’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on November 19, 2020, and had denied his earlier Rule 60(b) motion on May 31, 2022.
Rule 60(b) Motion
The court explained that Sankara had not shown that the judgment was void under Rule 60(b)(4), that it was based on an earlier judgment that had been reversed or vacated, or that it could no longer be applied prospectively in an equitable manner under Rule 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision for other extraordinary circumstances, therefore required a showing of extraordinary circumstances. The court held that Sankara’s new filings did not identify circumstances warranting relief under that provision and denied the motion.
Appointment of Counsel
The court also denied Sankara’s request for appointed counsel. It gave the same reason: Sankara had not shown that his claims were likely to have legal merit.
Appeal Status and Other Direction
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied status allowing Sankara to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Sankara a copy of the order and record the mailing on the public docket. Judge Nathan issued the order as a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.