Cheng v. United States
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-10536
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cheng v. United States and Cheng v. Garland, Judge Broderick postponed discovery and counsel decisions and ordered Cheng to respond or amend by June 11.
Pro se plaintiff Sheng-Wen Cheng, the United States, and Merrick Garland in the two related cases; the order postponed decisions on Cheng’s counsel and subpoena requests and required his next filing by June 11, 2023.
What happened
In Cheng v. United States and Cheng v. Garland, pro se plaintiff Sheng-Wen Cheng asked for free class counsel, a subpoena for administrative materials, and more time to respond to the Government’s motions to dismiss or amend his complaint.
The court postponed decisions on the counsel and subpoena requests because the case’s operative complaint was not yet clear. It also said discovery was premature. The court noted the Government’s argument that the challenged policy had ended and might make one case moot, and that Cheng’s transfer to another facility might affect the other case.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Cheng to respond to the motions to dismiss or file an amended complaint by June 11, 2023, and directed the Clerk to mail him copies of the motions. The order did not decide the motions to dismiss, the counsel request, or the subpoena request.
The detailed version
- Cheng v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-10536
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 27, 2023
Background
Pro se plaintiff Sheng-Wen Cheng was pursuing two related cases. In case 22-CV-10536, he requested appointment of pro bono class counsel or interim class counsel, a subpoena requiring production of administrative materials, and an extension of time to respond to the Government’s motion to dismiss or to file an amended complaint. The Government had filed motions to dismiss in both cases.
Court’s Analysis
The court held its decisions on counsel and the subpoena in abeyance, meaning it postponed those decisions. It stated that discovery was premature given the current posture of the cases. It also explained that appointment of pro bono counsel requires an initial assessment of whether the plaintiff’s claim appears likely to have substance. The court could not make that assessment until Cheng decided whether to amend his complaint or respond to the Government’s motions, because that decision would determine the operative complaint—the complaint governing the case.
The court also identified issues that could affect the cases’ continued viability. The Government asserted that the challenged policy was no longer in effect and that Cheng’s challenge might therefore be moot, meaning there might no longer be a live dispute. In case 23-CV-0229, Cheng sought an order requiring action based on the refusal of FCI Sandstone staff to act under that policy. Cheng had since been transferred to another facility, so the court said it was unclear whether the transfer, the different staff, and the policy change affected any part of that complaint.
Ruling
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 papers filed at the specified docket entries in both cases. The court did not rule on the motions to dismiss, the request for counsel, or the discovery subpoena; those matters remained unresolved or postponed. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.