Nguyen v. Jaddou
| Thanh Ngoc Nguyen |
| U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Ur Mendoza Jaddou |
| 4:2022cv00086 |
| January 21, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Staci G Cornelius |
| Madeline Hughes Haikala |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Thanh Ngoc Nguyen. Ur Mendoza Jaddou served on 2/17/2022, answer due 3/10/2022. (Shah, Sunny) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Ur Mendoza Jaddou. Returned to plaintiff for service. (MEB2) |
Filing 2
HAIKALA CHAMBERS INITIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 1/25/2022. (KEK)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, filed by Thanh Ngoc Nguyen. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G) (MEB2) |
| Filing Fee: Filing fee $ 402, receipt_number 1126-3998971 (ALND receipt# B4601118085). related document #1 COMPLAINT against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, filed by Thanh Ngoc Nguyen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (MEB2). (Shah, Sunny) Modified on 1/24/2022 (AKD). |
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 Alabama 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.
