Singh v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services et al
Santokh Singh |
Elisabeth E. Clerie, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Matthew Whitaker, Donald Neufeld, Kirstjen Nielsen and L. Francis Cissna |
2:2018cv03029 |
November 21, 2018 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Deborah Barnes |
John A Mendez |
Other Immigration Actions |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on January 29, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED by Santokh Singh. All Defendants served 11/27/2018 (Jobe, Robert) Modified on 11/28/2018 (York, M). |
Filing 3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 Order re Filing Requirements, #3 VDRP) (Kaminski, H) |
Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *L. Francis Cissna, Elisabeth E. Clerie, Donald Neufeld, Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Matthew Whitaker* with answer to complaint due within *60* days. Attorney *Robert Bradford Jobe* *Law Office of Robert B. Jobe* *550 Kearny Street, Suite 200* *San Francisco, CA 94108*. (Kaminski, H) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against all Defendants by Santokh Singh. Attorney Jobe, Robert Bradford added. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-7980851) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Jobe, Robert) |
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 Eastern 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.