Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 868
Second Circuit mandate denying six tandem pro se mandamus petitions that sought to compel the district court to docket and consider third-party claims to forfeited funds. The denial as to docketing and consideration is without prejudice to renewal if the district court does not act within a reasonable time.
摘要
Second Circuit Mandate · Tandem Pro Se Mandamus Petitions Denied
A three-page mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, entered on the district docket of United States v. Miles Guo, 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.), on August 6, 2026. The underlying order issued at a stated term held on May 15, 2026, before Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse, John M. Walker, Jr., and Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.; the mandate itself issued on August 6, 2026 in Case 26-563.
The petitions
Six petitioners, all proceeding pro se in matters designated to proceed in tandem (Nos. 25-3046, 26-77, 26-361, 26-364, 26-441, and 26-563), petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The relief sought fell into four groups:
- to compel the district court to docket and consider their third-party pro se submissions asserting claims to forfeited funds in the criminal case;
- to compel the recusal of the district judge (two petitioners);
- to compel the district court to seal or remove certain unredacted documents (one petitioner);
- to vacate or suspend an April 2025 order imposing a pre-filing screening requirement, under which the district court would review a petitioner's future submissions for good faith before accepting them for filing (one petitioner).
Ancillary motions accompanied the petitions: two applications for in forma pauperis status, five motions to seal or redact filings containing personal identifying information, a request for sua sponte correction of the record, motions for leave to file supplemental papers, to proceed by pseudonym and to file electronically, and four motions to stay district court proceedings pending decision.
The ruling
The court DENIED the mandamus petitions, holding that the petitioners had not shown that they lack an adequate alternative means of obtaining relief, that their right to the writ is clear and indisputable, or that issuing the writ would be appropriate in the circumstances, citing Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
Two qualifications limit that denial. Noting the large number of submissions received by the district court, which the panel said it trusts the district court will address expeditiously, the court denied the docketing petitions without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a reasonable time. The denial as to the district court's failure to consider the submissions is likewise without prejudice to renewal if the court fails to consider them within a reasonable time after sentencing in the underlying criminal case, citing United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008).
Disposition of the ancillary motions
One IFP motion was denied as moot because the filing fee had since been paid; the other was granted for purposes of filing the mandamus petition. Four motions to seal or redact were granted in part, insofar as they sought redaction of personal identifying information under Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(a), incorporated by Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5). One petitioner's sealing and redaction motions were denied because the district court had already redacted his personal identifying information (Dist. Ct. Dkt. Nos. 770, 745) and because they related to submissions made by other individuals (Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 765). A motion to seal a notice of appearance was granted. Motions for leave to file supplemental papers were granted and the supplemental papers considered. The motions to proceed by pseudonym, for permission to file electronically, and the four motions to stay district court proceedings were denied as moot.