{"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":"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.\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n\n在 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）的规定期日，于二〇二六年五月十五日，在纽约市 Foley 广场 40 号 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse（瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院大楼）举行。\n\n出席法官：\n\nAmalya L. Kearse,\nJohn M. Walker, Jr.,\nRaymond J. Lohier, Jr.,\n巡回法官。\n\n关于：Jason Zen，申诉人。 — 25-3046 (Tandem)\n\n关于：Chunk Chyi，申诉人。 — 26-77 (Tandem)\n\n关于：Tony，申诉人。 — 26-361 (Tandem)\n\n关于：Doe，申诉人。 — 26-364 (Tandem)\n\n关于：Carolyn Sun，申诉人。 — 26-441 (Tandem)\n\n关于：DX，申诉人。 — 26-563 (Tandem)\n\nCase: 25-3046, 05/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 2 of 3\n\n申诉人在这些指定协同审理的事项中以 pro se（自行代理）方式进行诉讼，请求签发 writ of mandamus（职务履行令）。申诉人 Zen、Tony、Doe、Sun、DX 及 Chyi 寻求强制地方法院对他们在本刑事案件中就没收资金主张权利的第三方自行代理提交材料进行登记入卷并予以审理。申诉人 Zen 及 Chyi 寻求强制地方法院法官回避本案。申诉人 Zen 寻求强制地方法院对若干未经编辑遮盖的文件予以封存或移除。申诉人 Chyi 寻求撤销或暂停执行2025年4月的一项命令，该命令要求地方法院在接受他未来提交的任何材料以供立案前，将对这些材料进行审查以确保其系出于善意而作出。除上述职务履行令申请外，申诉人 Zen 与 DX 动议申请 in forma pauperis（“IFP”，诉讼费用减免）身份；申诉人 Zen、Tony、Doe、Sun 及 DX 动议请求封存或遮盖在本院提交的包含其个人身份识别信息的文书；申诉人 Tony 请求我们在进行任何上诉审理之前 sua sponte（依职权）纠正并澄清记录；申诉人 DX 动议请求准予提交补充材料以支持其职务履行令申请、以化名进行诉讼以及获准进行电子提交；申诉人 Sun、Tony、Doe 及 Chyi 动议请求在就其职务履行令申请作出裁决前中止地方法院的诉讼程序。\n\n经正当考虑，特此裁定：驳回职务履行令申请，因申诉人未能证明其缺乏获得救济的充分替代途径、其享有该令状的权利明确且无可争辩，以及在当前情况下签发该令状是适当的。参见 Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)。鉴于地方法院收到大量提交材料，本院相信该法院将迅速予以处理，就登记其提交材料入卷而言，申诉人的职务履行令申请予以驳回，但不影响若地方法院未能在合理期限内将材料登记入卷时的重新提出。同样，就地方法院未能审理申诉人的提交材料而言，驳回申请亦不影响若地方法院在基础刑事案件量刑后的合理期限内未能审理这些材料时的重新提出。参见同上；United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008)。\n\n特此裁定：申诉人 DX 的诉讼费用减免动议因 DX 其后已缴纳案件受理费而作为已无实际意义予以驳回；申诉人 Zen 的诉讼费用减免动议就提交职务履行令申请之目的而言予以准许。Tony、Doe、Sun 及 DX 的封存或遮盖动议在寻求按照 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》）第 49.1(a) 条规定遮盖个人身份识别信息的范围内予以部分准许。参见 Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5)（通过援引纳入第 49.1(a) 条）。申诉人 Zen 的封存与遮盖动议予以驳回，范围限于地方法院此前已对其个人身份识别信息进行了遮盖（Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 770, 745）以及涉及其他个人所提交的材料部分（Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 765）。申诉人 Sun 关于封存其出庭通知的动议予以准许。DX 关于准予提交补充材料以支持其职务履行令申请的动议予以准许，且本院已考虑了该等补充材料。最后，DX 关于以化名进行诉讼及获准进行电子提交的动议，以及 Sun、Tony、Doe 和 Chyi 关于中止地方法院诉讼程序的动议，均作为已无实际意义予以驳回。\n\nCase: 25-3046, 05/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 3 of 3\n\n代表法院：\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe，法院书记官\n\n[签署] Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe\n\n真实副本\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe，书记官\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n\n认证副本签发日期：05/15/2026","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":740,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-05-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-05-15","updated_at":"2026-08-23 09:29:21"}