Cheng v. United States
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-07602
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cheng v. United States, Judge Broderick ordered service of the lawsuit on the United States through the Marshals Service.
Sheng-Wen Cheng and the United States; the order directs the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the United States.
What happened
In Cheng v. United States, Sheng-Wen Cheng, who is incarcerated, brought a lawsuit challenging an alleged federal policy concerning home confinement for certain federal prisoners with immigration detainers. He claims the policy violates the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and seeks relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court noted that Cheng had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because of that status, the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the United States instead of requiring Cheng to do so himself. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.
Judge Broderick directed the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, complete the required service form, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The order also told Cheng to request more time if service is not completed within 90 days and to notify the court if his address changes. The order did not decide whether Cheng’s legal claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Cheng v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-07602
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
Sheng-Wen Cheng, who is incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center Rochester, filed this action without a lawyer against the United States. He challenges an alleged federal policy that bars federal prisoners with immigration detainers who are awaiting a final order of removal from qualifying for home confinement. Cheng alleges that the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and seeks relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Service of process
The court stated that Cheng had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. In such cases, the court and the U.S. Marshals Service are responsible for effecting service, meaning formally delivering the summons and complaint to the defendant. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for service on the United States, mark the form for service on the United States, issue a summons, and deliver the order and other necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.
The court explained that the ordinary 90-day service period could not begin when Cheng filed the complaint because he could not have served the summons and complaint before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered that a summons be issued. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, Cheng should request an extension. The court also directed 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
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, complete the service form, and provide the required documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. It also directed the Clerk to mail Cheng an information package. This order addressed service and related case administration; it did not decide the merits of Cheng’s constitutional or Administrative Procedure Act claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.