{"id":"court_sdny_767_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":767,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-11-26","title":"Case: 25-2726, 11/26/2025, DktEntry: 20.1, Page 1 of 2 Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 767 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 2","summary_zh":"美国第二巡回法院裁定令 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案下级法院诉讼案号 1:23-cr-00118，第二巡回案号 25-2726 ECF 767（2025年11月26日）。法院驳回自诉人 Ranyue Bai 的人身保护令申请，理由为申请人未能证明其权利明确且不可争议。","summary_en":"United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Order — related to United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo), District Court Case No. 1:23-cr-00118, Second Circuit Case No. 25-2726, ECF No. 767 (filed November 26, 2025). The Court denies pro se petitioner Ranyue Bai's petition for writ of mandamus, finding that petitioner has not demonstrated that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable.","body_en":"S.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C. 23-cr-118 Torres, 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 26th day of November, two thousand twenty-five.\n\nPresent:\n\nDennis Jacobs, Joseph F. Bianco, *Circuit Judges*, Victor A. Bolden, *District Judge.\\**\n\nIn Re: Ranyue Bai, 25-2726\n\n25-212\n\n*Petitioner*.\n\nPetitioner, pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to cease suppressing his future filings, docket his submitted but undocketed motions, and rule on his pending Rule 60(d)(3) motion. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioner has not demonstrated that his 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).\n\nIn view of the large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will address expeditiously, Petitioner's mandamus petition as to docketing his submissions is denied without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a reasonable time.\n\n<sup>\\*</sup> Judge Victor A. Bolden, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.\n\nLikewise, the denial as to his Rule 60(d)(3) motion is without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to take action within a reasonable time after sentencing in the underlying criminal case. *See Cheney*, 542 U.S. at 380–81; *United States v. Magassouba*, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008).\n\n2\n\nFOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court\n\nCatherine O'Hoppe Wolfe\n\nUNITED STATES\nSECOND CIRCUIT\nCOURT OF APPEALS\n\nA True Copy\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Torres","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":20,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":320,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-11-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-11-26","updated_at":"2026-07-20 21:18:50"}