Micheal Samy Eshak v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
| Micheal Samy Amin Eshak |
| United States Department of Homeland Security, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Los Angeles Asylum Office, David Radel, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UR M JADDOU, Ted H. Kim, Matthew D. Emrich, Christopher A Wray, DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Ur M. Jaddou, Christopher A. Wray and Does 1-10 |
| 5:2023cv02010 |
| October 2, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Consuelo B Marshall |
| Sheri Pym |
| Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 23
ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY THE CASE PENDING ADJUDICATION OF APPLICATION #22 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant action shall be stayed until March 17, 2025. (rolm)
|
| Filing 22 First STIPULATION to Stay Case pending pending adjudication of Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshaks I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal filed by Defendant Matthew D. Emrich, Ur M. Jaddou, Ted H. Kim, Los Angeles Asylum Office, Alejandro Mayorkas, David Radel, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security, Christopher A. Wray. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Eric Michael Snyderman added to party Matthew D. Emrich(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Michael Snyderman added to party Ur M. Jaddou(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Michael Snyderman added to party Ted H. Kim(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Michael Snyderman added to party Los Angeles Asylum Office(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Michael Snyderman added to party Alejandro Mayorkas(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Michael Snyderman added to party David Radel(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Michael Snyderman added to party United States Citizenship and Immigration Services(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Michael Snyderman added to party United States Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Michael Snyderman added to party Christopher A. Wray(pty:dft))(Snyderman, Eric) |
| Filing 21 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Document RE: Notice of Appearance,,, #20 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect document is attached to the docket entry. 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. (ak) |
| Filing 20 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Oil Appellate on behalf of Defendants Matthew D. Emrich, Ur M. Jaddou, Ted H. Kim, Los Angeles Asylum Office, Alejandro Mayorkas, David Radel, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security, Christopher A. Wray (Attorney Oil Appellate added to party Matthew D. Emrich(pty:dft), Attorney Oil Appellate added to party Ur M. Jaddou(pty:dft), Attorney Oil Appellate added to party Ted H. Kim(pty:dft), Attorney Oil Appellate added to party Los Angeles Asylum Office(pty:dft), Attorney Oil Appellate added to party Alejandro Mayorkas(pty:dft), Attorney Oil Appellate added to party David Radel(pty:dft), Attorney Oil Appellate added to party United States Citizenship and Immigration Services(pty:dft), Attorney Oil Appellate added to party United States Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Oil Appellate added to party Christopher A. Wray(pty:dft))(Appellate, Oil) |
| Filing 19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, upon Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security served on 10/13/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Office of General Counsel. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. 10/16/2023 (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 18 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, upon Defendant Ur M. Jaddou served on 10/13/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Office of General Counsel. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. 10/13/2023 (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 17 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, upon Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services served on 10/13/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Office of General Counsel. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. 10/16/2023 (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 16 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, upon Defendant Ted H. Kim served on 10/13/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Office of General Counsel. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. 10/16/2023 (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, upon Defendant Matthew D. Emrich served on 10/13/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Office of General Counsel. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. 10/16/2023 (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, upon Defendant Los Angeles Asylum Office served on 10/13/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Office of General Counsel. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. 10/16/2023 (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, upon Defendant David Radel served on 10/13/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Office of General Counsel. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. 10/16/2023 (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, upon Defendant Christopher A. Wray served on 10/13/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Attorney General. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. 10/16/2023 (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, upon Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas served on 10/13/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Office of General Counsel. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. 10/16/2023 (Thomas, Gihan) |
|
Filing 10
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. See order for details. (ys)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Docket Entry No. 6, the Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program wasinadvertently docketed. Please disregard document No. 6. Re: Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program (ADR-8) - optional html form #6 (lh) |
| Filing 8 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Matthew D. Emrich, Ur M. Jaddou, Ted H. Kim, Los Angeles Asylum Office, Alejandro Mayorkas, David Radel, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security, Christopher A. Wray. (lh) |
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (lh) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #3 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak. (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak, (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak. (Thomas, Gihan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36143201 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Micheal Samy Amin Eshak. (Attorney Gihan L Thomas added to party Micheal Samy Amin Eshak(pty:pla))(Thomas, Gihan) |
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.
