Cheng v. Wilson

Background

Sheng-Wen Cheng filed this action while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota. The court previously transferred the action to the District of New Jersey because Cheng alleged that the opposing parties and witnesses were in New Jersey and that the events underlying his claims occurred at the Federal Correctional Institution at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Those alleged events included an April 25, 2022 stabbing by another prisoner, prison officials’ alleged failure to protect him, and an alleged delay in providing medical treatment.

After the transfer, Cheng filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e)(1) asking the court to redact references to the stabbing from his initial pleading and supporting documents. He later sent a letter asking the court to seal or redact pleadings and opinions related to the incident. Cheng said that public access could expose him to physical danger, harassment, and embarrassment. He also acknowledged that the information had become public and attributed his failure to request sealing earlier to his incarceration, lack of legal knowledge, and self-represented status.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the public has common-law and First Amendment rights of access to court documents, although those rights are not absolute. It applied the three-part test used in the Second Circuit: whether the material is a judicial document, the strength of the presumption of public access, and whether competing considerations outweigh that presumption.

The court determined that the documents Cheng identified—including his initial pleading, related submissions, the prior transfer order, his redaction motion, his letter request, and the present order—were judicial documents because they were relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court also found that they were entitled to a strong presumption of public access.

The court recognized Cheng’s concerns but concluded that they were not sufficiently extraordinary to overcome public access. It emphasized that the documents showed the factual and legal basis for the court’s decisions and that the information had been publicly available on the electronic docket since December 20, 2022. The information was also available through the District of New Jersey’s docket for the transferred action.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Cheng’s “motion to redact certain information” and denied his letter request to seal or redact the pleadings and opinions related to the incident. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion addressed access to court records; it did not decide the underlying allegations about the stabbing, protection, or medical treatment.