Kanayama v. Kowal
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:23-cv-03469
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kanayama v. Kowal, Judge McMahon denied Kanayama’s petition and declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal.
Masahide Kanayama’s petition was denied, and he was not granted a certificate of appealability; the judgment names Scott Kowal and Does 1–10 as respondents.
What happened
In Kanayama v. Kowal, Masahide Kanayama filed a petition against Scott Kowal and Does 1–10. The supplied judgment does not explain the petition’s underlying claims or arguments.
The court denied Kanayama’s petition. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which would permit an appeal in circumstances requiring that certificate, because it found no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.
Judge McMahon’s court further found that any appeal from the order denying Kanayama’s motion would not be taken in good faith. The judgment does not include the reasoning from the court’s April 11, 2024 decision.
The detailed version
- Kanayama v. Kowal · No. 1:23-cv-03469
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 12, 2024
What the Judgment Says
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s April 11, 2024 Decision and Order, Masahide Kanayama’s petition is denied. The supplied text does not include that earlier decision, so it does not identify the petition’s claims, the parties’ arguments, or the court’s substantive reasoning.
Appeal-Related Rulings
The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because it found no “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” A certificate of appealability is a court document required for certain appeals. The court also found under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order denying Kanayama’s motion would not be taken in good faith.
Disposition
The petition was denied. The judgment does not state that the petition was dismissed with or without prejudice. Because the supplied judgment contains no merits analysis and incorporates a missing decision, the basis for the denial cannot be determined from this text alone.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.