{"id":"court_sdny_794_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":794,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2026-01-22","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg) S.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C. 23-cr-118 Torres, J.","summary_zh":"驳回令状申请 —— 美国第二巡回法院，案号25-2726。Pro se请愿人Ranyue Bai申请令状，要求法院命令地区法院停止压制其未来提交、调卷已提交但未调卷的动议、并对其待决的《联邦民事诉讼规则》第60(d)(3)条动议进行裁决。法院驳回该申请，认为请愿人未证明其对令状的权利是明确和无可置疑的。","summary_en":"Denial of Mandamus Petition —— United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, case 25-2726. Pro se petitioner Ranyue Bai petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to cease suppressing his future filings, docket submitted but undocketed motions, and rule on his pending Rule 60(d)(3) motion. The Court denied the petition, finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nS.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.\\** Jan 22 2026\n\nIn Re: Ranyue Bai, 25-2726\n\n25-2726\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'Hagan Wolfe\n\n(Seal: UNITED STATES SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS)\n\nA True Copy\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe (Signature over Seal: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT)","body_zh":"S.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C. 23-cr-118 Torres, J.（纽约南区联邦地区法院 – 纽约市 案号 23-cr-118 托雷斯法官）\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国第二巡回上诉法院）\n_________________\n\n在开庭期于二〇二五年十一月二十六日，在位于纽约市福利广场40号（40 Foley Square）的瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院（Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse）举行的美国第二巡回上诉法院会议上。\n\n出席人员：\n\n巡回法官 Dennis Jacobs（丹尼斯·雅各布斯）、Joseph F. Bianco（约瑟夫·F·比安科），地区法官 Victor A. Bolden（维克多·A·博尔登）*。Jan 22 2026\n\n关于：Ranyue Bai（白冉月），25-2726\n\n25-2726\n\n请愿人。\n\n请愿人（Petitioner）自行代理（pro se）提交了一份调卷令（writ of mandamus，职务履行令）请愿书，请求指令地区法院停止压制其未来提交的文件，将其已提交但未登记入卷的动议登记入卷，并对其待决的《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60(d)(3) 条动议作出裁定。经审慎考虑，特此下令：驳回该调卷令请愿书，因为请愿人未能证明其获得该令状的权利是明确且无可争辩的，亦未能证明在此等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)。\n\n鉴于地区法院收到的大量提交材料（我们相信该法院将迅速予以处理），关于将请愿人提交的文件登记入卷的调卷令请愿书被驳回，但若地区法院未能在合理时间内将这些提交材料登记入卷，请愿人有权再次提出。\n\n* 维克多·A·博尔登（Victor A. Bolden）法官，来自 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区联邦地区法院），系指派参与审理。\n\n同样，关于其第 60(d)(3) 条动议的驳回，亦不影响其在地区法院未能在基础刑事案件宣判后的合理时间内采取行动的情况下再次提出。参见 Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380–81; United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008)。\n\n代表本院：Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe（凯瑟琳·奥哈根·沃尔夫），法院书记官\n\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe（凯瑟琳·奥哈根·沃尔夫）\n\n（印章：美国第二巡回上诉法院）\n\n真实副本\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe（凯瑟琳·奥哈根·沃尔夫），书记官\n美国第二巡回上诉法院\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe（签名覆于印章之上：美国第二巡回上诉法院）","key_entities":["Torres","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":19,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":335,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-01-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-01-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:20:29"}