Cheng v. Garland

Background

Sheng-Wen Cheng, who was representing himself, made three requests in No. 22-CV-10536: appointment of free class counsel or interim class counsel, a discovery subpoena seeking administrative materials, and additional time to respond to the Government’s pending motion to dismiss or to file an amended complaint. The Government had filed motions to dismiss in both cases shown in the caption.

The related case, No. 23-CV-0229, involved a complaint seeking a court order requiring staff at FCI Sandstone to take actions based on a policy. The opinion states that the policy was no longer in effect and that Cheng had since been transferred to another facility. The Government argued that Cheng’s challenge might therefore be moot, meaning that the court might no longer be able to provide meaningful relief.

Court’s reasoning

The court held its decisions on the requests for class counsel and discovery in abeyance, meaning it postponed those decisions. It found discovery premature because of the current stage of the cases. It also found appointing counsel premature because the court could not yet assess whether Cheng’s claim appeared likely to have substance. That assessment would depend on which complaint became operative after Cheng decided whether to amend his complaint or respond to the motions to dismiss.

The court also said it was unclear whether the policy’s termination and Cheng’s transfer had made some or all of the claims moot, particularly in No. 23-CV-0229. The court did not decide whether the claims were moot.

Order

The court ordered Cheng to respond to the Government’s motion to dismiss or file an amended complaint by June 11, 2023. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Cheng copies of the Government’s motion-to-dismiss papers filed at Docs. 22–24 in No. 22-CV-10536 and Docs. 17 and 18 in No. 23-CV-0229. The order did not rule on the motions to dismiss or decide the merits of Cheng’s claims.