{"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":null,"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":"2026-07-20 21:18:50"}