Yanxian Lin v. Kirstjen M Nielsen et al
Yanxian Lin |
Kirstjen M Nielsen and L. Francis Cissna |
2:2019cv01155 |
February 14, 2019 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Consuelo B Marshall |
Michael R Wilner |
Other Immigration Actions |
08 U.S.C. ยง 1329 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 Mail Returned addressed to Yanxian Lin re Summons Issued #5 (shb) |
Filing 12 Mail Returned addressed to Yanxian Lin re Summons Issued #4 (shb) |
Filing 11 Mail Returned addressed to Yanxian Lin re Notice of Assignment to United States Judges(CV-18) - optional html form #3 (shb) |
Filing 9 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #2 . The following error(s) was/were found: The attachment is missing In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (shb) |
Filing 8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Yanxian Lin, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Genoneva Ortega. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Genoneva Ortega. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by unspecified means. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (shb) |
Filing 7 STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. It controls this case and may differ in some respects from the Local Rules. (ys) |
Filing 6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Yanxian Lin, upon Defendant L. Francis Cissna served on 2/15/2019, answer due 4/16/2019; Kirstjen M Nielsen served on 2/15/2019, answer due 4/16/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by unspecified means. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by unspecified means. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by unspecified means. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (shb) |
Filing 5 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery), #1 as to Defendant Kirstjen M Nielsen. (shb) |
Filing 4 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery), #1 as to Defendant L. Francis Cissna. (shb) |
Filing 10 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by Plaintiff Yanxian Lin, (shb) |
Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (et) |
Filing 2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Yanxian Lin. (et) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND MANDAMUS RELIEF against Defendants L. Francis Cissna, Kirstjen M Nielsen. Case assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (Filing fee $ 400 PAID.), filed by Plaintiff Yanxian Lin. [Summons not Issued on 2/14/2019] (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (et) |
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 California Central 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.