Sankara v. Martuscello

Filing 86

ORDER denying 85 Motion for Reconsideration re 85 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 80 Clerk's Judgment, filed by Ahmadou Sankara. Petitioner Ahmadou Sankara, proceeding pro se, has moved to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 85. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied. (As further set forth herein.) The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Sankara and to note the mailing on the public docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/5/2024) (va)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AHMADOU SANKARA,
-v-

Petitioner,

DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLOR ET AL.,

18 Civ. 6308 (PAE)
Order

Respondents.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
Petitioner Ahmadou Sankara, proceeding pro se, has moved to set aside the judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 85. For the reasons that
follow, the motion is denied.
Sankara was arrested in New York on March 6, 2014, for possessing forged bank cards.
Dkt. 65. On December 9, 2015, he was convicted of three counts of second-degree criminal
possession of a forged instrument. Dkt. No. 1. On June 14, 2018, Sankara filed a pro se petition
for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 19, 2020, the Court1
denied Sankara's petition. Dkt. 70. On January 27, 2022, the Second Circuit dismissed
Sankara's appeal as moot. Dkt. 75. On May 31, 2022, the Court denied Sankara's first Rule
60(b) motion. Dkt. 79. On March 14, 2023, the Court denied his second Rule 60(b) motion.
Dkt. 81. On May 22, 2023, the Court denied his third such motion. Dkt. 84. This is Sankara's
fourth Rule 60(b) motion.
As the Court previously explained in denying Sankara's prior Rule 60(b) motions,
because a motion based on subsections (b)(l)-(3) is time-barred, his only recourse lies in

1

Judge Alison J. Nathan was then assigned to the case.

subsections (b)(4)-(6). But Sankara does not allege that the Court's decision is void, see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b )(4), or is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or that it
can no longer be prospectively applied equitably, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), so Sankara must
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances wan-ant relief, to satisfy Rule 60(b)(6). Sankara's
new filing repeats a laundry list of vague and conclusory allegations that were the basis of his
earlier motions, all denied by this Court. Dkt. 85. Because Sankara's new filings do not identify
any extraordinary circumstances wan-anting relief under Rule 60(b)(6), his motion is denied.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Sankara and
to note the mailing on the public docket.
SO ORDERED.

Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge
Dated: February 5, 2024
New York, New York