Sankara v. Martuscellor

Background

Ahmadou Sankara, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure asking the court to set aside its judgment. He also asked the court to appoint counsel. The court had denied his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to challenge the legality of that custody in federal court. The Court of Appeals later dismissed his appeal as moot. The district court had also denied two earlier Rule 60(b) motions.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that requests under Rule 60(b)(1) through (3) were time-barred. It said Sankara therefore had to proceed under Rule 60(b)(4) through (6). He did not claim that the judgment was void, based on a judgment that had been reversed or vacated, or no longer could be applied fairly. The court therefore considered whether extraordinary circumstances justified relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

The court concluded that Sankara’s new filings again did not identify extraordinary circumstances. It also said the filings largely attempted to repeat arguments from his § 2254 petition that the court had already considered and rejected. For the same reasons, the court found that Sankara had not shown that his claims were likely to have substance, so it denied his request for appointed counsel.

Ruling and Other Orders

Judge Nathan denied Sankara’s Rule 60(b) motion and denied his request for appointment of counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The court described this as Sankara’s third meritless Rule 60(b) motion and warned that continued frivolous and duplicative filings could result in sanctions, including a bar on additional filings in the case. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Sankara and terminate Docket No. 82.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court denied a request to set aside an earlier judgment and addressed appointed counsel and appeal-fee status without deciding the underlying habeas claims anew.