Summary
Summary being generated…
Document not found.
Document not found.
Summary being generated…
法庭文件 · 2026-05-28 · 127 页 · United States District Court · S.D.N.Y.
A pro se petitioner asks the Second Circuit to order the district court to formally docket and address her previously submitted victim filings, which she says were repeatedly received by the court but never entered on the record.
This is a renewed pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (appellate docket No. 26-1476, DktEntry 8.1) and entered on the district-court record as Document 850 in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al., No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.). The petition is dated May 10, 2026 and was received by the Second Circuit Clerk's Office on May 28, 2026; a $600 filing-fee money order was enclosed. The petitioner, identified only as "Sarah," proceeds pro se, states she is located in Canada, and asks that her name and cover page be redacted.
### Background
The petition is brought as a renewal following the Second Circuit's May 15, 2026 consolidated order (Doc 849), which denied a group of related pro se mandamus petitions without prejudice to renewal if the district court did not docket or address the submissions within a reasonable time.
### Petitioner's Account
Petitioner states that, over a period she describes as more than seven months, she repeatedly submitted pro se victim filings to the S.D.N.Y. asserting rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. She says these submissions were acknowledged by the S.D.N.Y. Pro Se Intake Unit and, in some instances, delivered in paper form with confirmed delivery, yet none were ever formally docketed, rejected, removed, or addressed by written order. She states she served contemporaneous copies on the Government (U.S. Attorney's Office, S.D.N.Y.) and defense counsel, and provided bilingual English/Chinese reference materials to aid comprehension by the detained, primarily Chinese-speaking defendant. She further states that, because the materials remained un-docketed, she submitted related mandamus materials to the United States Supreme Court under Supreme Court Rule 20 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); an initial submission was returned for formatting and, per the petitioner, a revised submission remains in administrative processing.
### Argument
Petitioner argues that the continued non-docketing has produced a procedural impasse that denies any meaningful judicial review: with no docket entry, there is no record for the district court to consider, no accurate public record, no procedural ruling, and no basis for appellate review. She emphasizes that the requested relief is narrow and procedural — she does not ask the appellate court to direct any particular substantive outcome or to intrude on the district court's discretion over the underlying criminal case, but only to have her filings entered on the record so that ordinary review can proceed.
### Relief Sought
In her Prayer for Relief, petitioner asks the Second Circuit to (1) direct the S.D.N.Y. to formally docket her previously submitted pro se victim filings identified in the petition and Appendix M, and (2) grant such other and further procedural relief as the court deems just and proper. The 127-page submission comprises a cover letter, the petition, a Chinese-language reference translation, and supporting appendices and procedural records.