Hango v. Nielsen et al
| Andrew Hango |
| William Barr, Warden, Geauga County Safety Center, Field Director, Detroit Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen |
| 1:2019cv00606 |
| March 19, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Sara Lioi |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Andrew Hango. (S,SR) |
| Filing 1 Petition under 28 USC 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in federal custody. Filing fee not paid, $5. Filed by Andrew Hango. (Attachments: #1 Judgment, #2 envelope) (S,SR) |
| Remark by Clerk: This case was assigned and processed without the filing of a Civil Cover Sheet, which is required by Local Rule 3.13(a). Copy of #2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis, #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and a blank civil cover sheet mailed to Andrew Hango #A76 029 374 at Geauga County Safety Center 12450 Merrit Rd. Chardon, OH 44024 on 3/19/2019. (S,SR) |
| Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg. (S,SR) |
| Judge Sara Lioi assigned to case, (S,SR) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
