Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 6, 2023

Kourani v. United States

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:23-cv-02265
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kourani v. United States, Judge Hellerstein denied reconsideration and a certificate of appealability after denying Kourani’s untimely post-conviction motion.

Who this affects

Ali Kourani’s request to reopen the denial of his untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and to obtain permission to appeal was denied; the United States was the respondent.

What happened

In Kourani v. United States, Ali Kourani asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the court had found untimely. He also asked for appointment of counsel and a certificate allowing an appeal.

Kourani argued that the court had failed to issue an order verifying the deadline for his § 2255 motion. The court said it had issued a January 30, 2023 docket order explaining that it could not verify or extend the statutory one-year filing period. The court also said Kourani had not shown a clear error in its earlier decision.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the motions for reconsideration and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. He found that Kourani had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied or identified a debatable claim for appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kourani v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-02265
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
July 6, 2023

Background

On June 1, 2023, the court denied Ali Kourani’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as untimely and denied his related request for appointment of counsel. Kourani then filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), along with a motion for a Certificate of Appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a motion under § 2255.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that reconsideration is subject to a strict standard and generally is not available merely to reargue issues that the court already decided. Relief ordinarily requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or evidence that the court overlooked.

Kourani focused on the court’s supposed failure to issue an order verifying the time he had to file his § 2255 motion. The court stated that it had issued a January 30, 2023 docket order explaining that it could not give or verify the last filing day for a § 2255 petition or extend the statutory one-year period. The court found that order consistent with governing law and concluded that Kourani had not shown clear error or identified another basis for relief under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).

The court also declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability. It found that Kourani had not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right and had not identified a claim about which reasonable judges could debate whether such a denial occurred.

Disposition

The court denied Kourani’s motions for reconsideration and for a Certificate of Appealability. The Clerk was directed to terminate the specified docket entries in both listed proceedings.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.