Cheng v. United States of America
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-05579
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cheng v. United States, Judge Ramos directed the Clerk to close Cheng’s case after Cheng stopped responding and failed to provide contact information.
Sheng-Wen Cheng, who was required to provide updated contact information and whose case the Clerk was directed to close; the United States was the defendant.
What happened
In Sheng-Wen Cheng v. United States of America, Cheng brought an action against the United States while representing himself. The case concerned Cheng’s failure to remain in contact with the Court after documents sent to his last known address were returned.
The government informed the Court that Cheng had been deported to Taiwan on March 31, 2025. The Court ordered Cheng to provide updated contact information by June 30, 2025, warning that the case would be closed if he did not do so. Cheng did not respond, and additional court documents were returned as undeliverable.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims or state that the case was dismissed.
The detailed version
- Cheng v. United States of America · No. 1:24-cv-05579
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
Sheng-Wen Cheng, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against the United States on July 18, 2024. Documents mailed to Cheng’s last known address were returned to the Court as undeliverable. On May 7, 2025, the Court directed Cheng to provide an updated mailing address.
On June 2, 2025, the government informed the Court that Cheng had been deported from the United States to Taiwan on March 31, 2025. The Court then directed Cheng to provide updated contact information by June 30, 2025, or the case would be closed. Cheng did not provide updated contact information, did not respond to court orders, and did not remain communicative with the Court. Documents continued to be returned as undeliverable.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not rule on the merits of Cheng’s claims against the United States. It also did not describe the action as dismissed or specify whether Cheng could refile.
The order noted that, in a separate related case brought by Cheng, the Court had closed that case for similar reasons after Cheng failed to file an amended complaint or keep the Court informed of his current address. That separate case is referenced here without repeating its prior caption.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the Court closed the case based on Cheng’s failure to maintain contact and comply with the Court’s order, without deciding the underlying legal claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.