Cheng v. Austin
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-08100
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cheng v. Austin, Judge Willis ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Austin after Cheng was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees.
The order directly affects Sheng-Wen Cheng, Eugene Austin, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. It allows service of Cheng’s lawsuit on Austin through the Marshals Service and sets the service deadline and related notice requirements for Cheng.
What happened
In Cheng v. Austin, Sheng-Wen Cheng, also known as Justin Cheng, sued Eugene Austin, also known as Hugh Austin, under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Cheng is incarcerated and is representing himself.
The court had allowed Cheng to proceed without prepaying court fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, complete the required service form, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so it could serve Austin. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis also directed Cheng to request more time if service is not completed within that period and to notify the court of any address change. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Cheng v. Austin · No. 1:24-cv-08100
- John Cronan
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
Sheng-Wen Cheng, also known as Justin Cheng, brought the action against Eugene Austin, also known as Hugh Austin, under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that Cheng is incarcerated in Rochester, Minnesota and is proceeding without a lawyer.
The court had previously granted Cheng permission to proceed without prepaying court fees. In such cases, federal law requires the court to issue and arrange service of process through the U.S. Marshals Service.
Order
The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Austin, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with Austin’s address, and deliver the necessary documents to the Marshals Service for service. The Clerk was also directed to mail an information package to Cheng.
The court stated that service must be completed within 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed by then, Cheng should request an extension of time. The court also instructed Cheng to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Disposition
This was an order arranging service of the lawsuit; it did not decide the underlying claims or Austin’s potential defenses. Judge Jennifer E. Willis signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.