Jie Zhang et al v. David Radel et al
| Jie Zhang, Pinwen He, Yuting He and Jiajun He |
| David Radel, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, United States Department of Homeland Security and Merrick Garland |
| 2:2022cv06395 |
| September 7, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Stanley Blumenfeld |
| Alicia G Rosenberg |
| Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 551 Administrative Procedure Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Yuting He, Pinwen He, Jiajun He, Jie Zhang, upon Defendant Merrick Garland served on 9/13/2022, answer due 11/14/2022; Ur Mendoza Jaddou served on 9/12/2022, answer due 11/14/2022; David Radel served on 9/9/2022, answer due 11/8/2022; United States Department of Homeland Security served on 9/12/2022, answer due 11/14/2022. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy. Service was executed in compliance with statute not specified. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. (aco) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED (PRO SE)LITIGANT by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, i.e., without legal representation, you are nonetheless required to comply with Court orders, the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.3. The Local Rules are available on this Courts website. There is a free "Pro Se Clinic" that can provide information and guidance about many aspects of civil litigation in this Court. The Clinic is located at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Pro se litigants must call or submit an on-line application to request services as follows: on-line applications can be submitted at http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/los-angeles, or call (213) 385-2977, ext. 270. Pro se litigants may submit documents for filing through the Court's Electronic Document Submission System (EDSS) instead of mailing or bringing documents to the Clerk's Office. Only internet access and an e-mail address are required. To access EDSS and for additional information, visit the Court's website at https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/edss. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jgr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
Filing 7
CIVIL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. (jgr)
|
| Filing 6 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (car) |
| Filing 3 60 DAY Summons Issued re Petition (case opening), #1 as to Defendants Merrick Garland, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, David Radel, United States Department of Homeland Security. (car) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Jiajun He, Pinwen He, Yuting He, Jie Zhang (car) |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS filed against Merrick Garland, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, David Radel, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Filing fee $ 402 PAID), filed by Plaintiffs Jie Zhang, Jiajun He, Yuting He, Pinwen He. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (car) |
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.
