{"id":"court_2cir_25-3046_dkt_34_order","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2026-05-15","title":"2Cir ECF 25-3046_dkt_34_order","summary_zh":"第二巡回上诉法院命令——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵)案,25-3046 号(与 26-77、26-361、26-364、26-441、26-563 并案审理)ECF #34,2026年5月15日裁定。三名巡回法官(Kearse、Walker、Lohier)驳回 Jason Zen、Chunk Chyi、Tony、Doe、Carolyn Sun、DX 六名 pro se 请愿人要求强制地区法院受理其涉没收资金/CVRA 第三方提交(部分请愿人还要求法官回避、Zen 要求密封文件、Chyi 要求撤销2025年4月的'善意筛选'令)的 mandamus 请愿,但注明'如地区法院未在合理时间内受理或审议,可重新申请'。同时对 IFP、密封/涂改个人信息、暂缓诉讼等附带动议分别予以批准、部分批准或认定为无实际意义(moot)。","summary_en":"Order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), 2d Cir. No. 25-3046 (consolidated in tandem with Nos. 26-77, 26-361, 26-364, 26-441, 26-563), ECF/DktEntry #34, decided May 15, 2026. A three-judge panel (Kearse, Walker, Lohier) denied the mandamus petitions of six pro se petitioners — Jason Zen, Chunk Chyi, Tony, Doe, Carolyn Sun, and DX — seeking to compel the district court to docket their third-party forfeiture/CVRA submissions (some also sought the judge's recusal, sealing of documents, or vacatur of an April 2025 good-faith screening order), denying without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to act within a reasonable time. The panel also granted, partly granted, or mooted related motions for IFP status, sealing/redaction, and stays of district court proceedings.","body_en":"Case: 25-3046, 05/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 1 of 3\n\nS.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C.\n23-cr-118\nTorres, J.\n\n## **UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**\n\nAt a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15<sup>th</sup> day of May, two thousand twenty-six.\n\n**Present:**\n\nAmalya L. Kearse,\nJohn M. Walker, Jr.,\nRaymond J. Lohier, Jr.,\n*Circuit Judges.*\n\n---\n\nIn Re: **Jason Zen**, Petitioner. — **25-3046 (Tandem)**\n\nIn Re: **Chunk Chyi**, Petitioner. — **26-77 (Tandem)**\n\nIn Re: **Tony**, Petitioner. — **26-361 (Tandem)**\n\nIn Re: **Doe**, Petitioner. — **26-364 (Tandem)**\n\nIn Re: **Carolyn Sun**, Petitioner. — **26-441 (Tandem)**\n\nIn Re: **DX**, Petitioner. — **26-563 (Tandem)**\n\n---\n\n## Case: 25-3046, 05/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 2 of 3\n\nPetitioners, proceeding pro se in these matters designated to proceed in tandem, petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioners Zen, Tony, Doe, Sun, DX, and Chyi seek to compel the district court to docket and consider their third-party pro se submissions asserting claims to forfeited funds in this criminal case. Petitioners Zen and Chyi seek to compel the district court judge's recusal from the case. Petitioner Zen seeks to compel the district court to seal or remove certain unredacted documents. Petitioner Chyi seeks vacatur or suspension of an April 2025 order imposing a requirement that before accepting any of his future submissions for filing, the district court would screen those submissions to ensure that they were made in good faith. In addition to these mandamus petitions, Petitioners Zen and DX move for in forma pauperis (\"IFP\") status; Petitioners Zen, Tony, Doe, Sun, and DX move to seal or redact filings in this Court containing their personal identifying information; Petitioner Tony requests that we *sua sponte* correct and clarify the record before any appellate consideration; Petitioner DX moves for leave to file supplemental papers in support of his mandamus petition, to proceed by pseudonym, and for permission to file electronically; and Petitioners Sun, Tony, Doe, and Chyi move to stay district court proceedings pending decision on their mandamus petitions.\n\nUpon due consideration, it is hereby **ORDERED** that the mandamus petitions are **DENIED** because Petitioners have not demonstrated that they lack an adequate, alternative means of obtaining relief, that their right to the writ is clear and indisputable, and that granting the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. *See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.*, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). In view of the large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will address expeditiously, Petitioners' mandamus petitions as to docketing their submissions are denied **without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a reasonable time**. Likewise, the denial as to the district court's failure to consider Petitioners' submissions is **without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to consider them within a reasonable time after sentencing in the underlying criminal case**. *See id.*; *United States v. Magassouba*, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008).\n\nPetitioner DX's IFP motion is hereby **DENIED as moot** because DX has since paid the filing fee, and Petitioner Zen's IFP motion is **GRANTED** for purposes of filing the mandamus petition. The motions of Tony, Doe, Sun, and DX to seal or redact are **GRANTED, in part**, insofar as they seek to redact personal identifying information as set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a). *See* Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5) (incorporating Rule 49.1(a) by reference). Petitioner Zen's motions to seal and redact are **DENIED** insofar as the district court has already redacted his personal identifying information, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 770, 745, and as they relate to submissions by other individuals, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 765. Petitioner Sun's motion to seal her notice of appearance is **GRANTED**. DX's motions for leave to file supplemental papers in support of his mandamus petition are **GRANTED**, and we have considered those supplemental papers. Finally, DX's motions to proceed by pseudonym and for permission to file electronically and Sun's, Tony's, Doe's, and Chyi's motions to stay district court proceedings are **DENIED as moot**.\n\n## Case: 25-3046, 05/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 3 of 3\n\n**FOR THE COURT:**\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court\n\n[signed] Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe\n\n---\n\nA True Copy\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit\n\nCERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 05/15/2026\n\n---","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":740,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-05-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-05-15","updated_at":"2026-07-07 13:44:16"}