法庭文件 · 2026-05-15 · 3 页 · United States District Court · S.D.N.Y.
摘要
Second Circuit Order · Consolidated Pro Se Mandamus Petitions Denied
This order was issued on May 15, 2026 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse, John M. Walker, Jr., and Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. The order resolves six related pro se petitions for writs of mandamus arising from United States v. Miles Guo, 23-cr-118 (S.D.N.Y.), before District Judge Analisa Torres.
The Six Petitioners
The consolidated petitioners, all proceeding pro se in tandem, are:
- Jason Zen — Case 25-3046 (Tandem);
- Chunk Chyi — Case 26-77 (Tandem);
- Tony — Case 26-361 (Tandem);
- Doe — Case 26-364 (Tandem);
- Carolyn Sun — Case 26-441 (Tandem);
- DX — Case 26-563 (Tandem).
Relief Sought
The petitioners requested the Second Circuit to compel actions by the district court:
- Docketing and consideration of third-party submissions (Zen, Tony, Doe, Sun, DX, Chyi): orders compelling the district court to docket and consider their pro se submissions asserting claims to forfeited funds in the criminal case;
- Recusal of the district judge (Zen, Chyi): orders compelling Judge Torres to recuse from the case;
- Sealing or removal of unredacted documents (Zen): orders compelling sealing or removal of certain unredacted documents;
- Vacatur of a screening order (Chyi): an order vacating or suspending an April 2025 order requiring that Chyi's future submissions be screened for good faith before being accepted for filing.
Ancillary Motions
In addition to mandamus, the petitioners filed several ancillary motions:
- Zen and DX moved for in forma pauperis (IFP) status;
- Zen, Tony, Doe, Sun, and DX moved to seal or redact filings in the appellate court containing their personal identifying information;
- Tony requested sua sponte correction and clarification of the record before any appellate consideration;
- DX moved for leave to file supplemental papers, to proceed by pseudonym, and for permission to file electronically;
- Sun, Tony, Doe, and Chyi moved to stay district court proceedings pending decision on the mandamus petitions.
Ruling on the Mandamus Petitions
Applying Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004), the panel held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate three required showings: that they lacked an adequate, alternative means of obtaining relief; that their right to the writ was clear and indisputable; and that issuance of the writ was appropriate under the circumstances. The mandamus petitions are accordingly DENIED.
The denial of the docketing-related portion is entered without prejudice to renewal in two respects:
- Docketing: in view of the large number of submissions received by the district court, which the panel "trust[s] the court will address expeditiously," the petitioners' mandamus petitions as to docketing are denied without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a reasonable time.
- Consideration: the denial of mandamus for failure to consider petitioners' submissions is also without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to consider them within a reasonable time after sentencing in the underlying criminal case (citing also United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008)).
Disposition of Ancillary Motions
- DX's IFP motion: DENIED as moot because DX has since paid the filing fee;
- Zen's IFP motion: GRANTED for purposes of filing the mandamus petition;
- Sealing/redaction motions by Tony, Doe, Sun, and DX: GRANTED in part — insofar as they seek to redact personal identifying information as set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a). The Court cites Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(a)(5), which incorporates Rule 49.1(a) by reference;
- Zen's sealing and redaction motions: DENIED insofar as the district court has already redacted his personal identifying information (Dist. Ct. Dkt. Nos. 770, 745) and insofar as they relate to submissions by other individuals (Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 765);
- Sun's motion to seal her notice of appearance: GRANTED;
- DX's motion for leave to file supplemental papers: GRANTED, and the supplemental papers were considered;
- DX's motions to proceed by pseudonym and to file electronically: DENIED as moot;
- Sun's, Tony's, Doe's, and Chyi's motions to stay district court proceedings: DENIED as moot.
The order is issued for the Court by Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court.