{"id":"court_sdny_849_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":849,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2026-05-15","title":"SDNY ECF 849","summary_zh":"命令 —— 美国第二巡回法院，2026 年 5 月 15 日，ECF #849。法院处理了多个请愿人（Jason Zen, Chunk Chyi, Tony, Doe, Carolyn Sun, DX）关于刑事案 23-cr-118 没收资金的令状请愿，驳回了其令状请愿，理由是请愿人未能证明缺乏充分的替代救济手段；关于地区法院未在合理时间内提交或考虑他们的提交，驳回时保留恢复权。","summary_en":"Order — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, May 15, 2026, ECF No. 849. The court addresses mandamus petitions from multiple petitioners (Jason Zen, Chunk Chyi, Tony, Doe, Carolyn Sun, DX) regarding forfeited funds in criminal case 23-cr-118, denying their mandamus petitions because petitioners have not demonstrated they lack an adequate alternative means of obtaining relief; denying without prejudice to renewal regarding the district court's failure to docket or consider their submissions within a reasonable time.","body_en":"S.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C.\n23-cr-118\nTorres, J.\n\nUSDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #:\nDATE FILED: May 15 2026\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\nCERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 05/15/2026\n\n---\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**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","body_zh":"S.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C.（纽约南区 – 纽约市）\n23-cr-118\nTorres, J.（托雷斯法官）\n\nUSDC SDNY（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\nDOCUMENT（文件）\nELECTRONICALLY FILED（电子归档）\nDOC #:（文件编号：）\nDATE FILED: May 15 2026（归档日期：2026年5月15日）\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国第二巡回上诉法院）\n\n在二〇二六年五月十五日，于纽约市弗利广场40号瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院举行的美国第二巡回上诉法院定期法庭期。\n\n出席法官：\n\nAmalya L. Kearse（阿玛利亚·L·科尔斯），\nJohn M. Walker, Jr.（小约翰·M·沃克），\nRaymond J. Lohier, Jr.（小雷蒙德·J·洛希尔），\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\n认证副本签发日期：05/15/2026\n\n在这些指定一并审理的案件中自行代理（pro se）的申诉人，申请执行令状（writ of mandamus）。申诉人Zen、Tony、Doe、Sun、DX和Chyi请求强制地区法院登记并审理其作为第三方自行提交的、就本刑事案件中没收资金主张权利的文件。申诉人Zen和Chyi请求强制地区法院法官在本案中回避。申诉人Zen请求强制地区法院封存或移除某些未作隐名处理的文件。申诉人Chyi请求撤销或中止2025年4月的一项命令，该命令要求地区法院在接受其未来提交的任何文件前，须对这些文件进行审查以确保其系出于善意。除这些执行令状申请外，申诉人Zen和DX动议申请以贫民身份诉讼（“IFP”）地位；申诉人Zen、Tony、Doe、Sun和DX动议封存或隐名处理提交至本法院的载有其个人身份识别信息的文件；申诉人Tony请求我们在进行任何上诉审理之前依职权（sua sponte）更正并澄清记录；申诉人DX动议请求许可提交补充文件以支持其执行令状申请、以化名进行诉讼以及获准进行电子提交；申诉人Sun、Tony、Doe和Chyi动议请求在就其执行令状申请作出裁定前中止地区法院的诉讼程序。\n\n经正当考量，兹裁定驳回执行令状申请，理由是申诉人未能证明其缺乏获得救济的其他充分途径、其享有获得该令状的权利是明确且无可争辩的，以及在此种情况下准予令状是适当的。参见 Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)。鉴于地区法院收到的大量提交文件（我们相信地区法院将迅速予以处理），申诉人就登记其提交文件提出的执行令状申请予以驳回，且不影响其在地区法院未能在合理时间内登记该等文件时重新提出申请。同样，就地区法院未予审理申诉人提交文件提出的驳回，亦不影响其在地区法院未能在基础刑事案件量刑后的合理时间内审理该等文件时重新提出申请。参见前引判例；United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008)。\n\n兹因DX此后已缴纳诉讼费，申诉人DX的IFP动议以失去实际意义为由予以驳回；出于提交执行令状申请之目的，申诉人Zen的IFP动议予以准许。Tony、Doe、Sun和DX请求封存或隐名处理的动议在寻求隐名处理《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第49.1(a)条所列个人身份识别信息的范围内予以部分准许。参见《联邦上诉诉讼规则》第25(a)(5)条（通过引用并入第49.1(a)条）。申诉人Zen请求封存和隐名处理的动议予以驳回，鉴于地区法院已隐名处理其个人身份识别信息（地区法院案卷号 770, 745），且该动议涉及其他个人提交的文件（地区法院案卷号 765）。申诉人Sun请求封存其出庭通知的动议予以准许。DX请求许可提交补充文件以支持其执行令状申请的动议予以准许，我们已对这些补充文件予以考量。最后，DX请求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请求中止地区法院诉讼程序的动议，均以失去实际意义为由予以驳回。\n\n代表法院：\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe，法院书记官\n\n[签名] Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe\n\n真实副本\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe，书记官\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":722,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-05-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-05-15","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:23:00"}