S.A. et al v. Trump et al
| S.A., J.A., A.B., R.C., M.C., D.D., G.E., J.F. and CASA |
| Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kirstjen Nielsen, Michael R. Pompeo, L. Francis Cissna, United States of America and U.S. Department of State |
| 3:2018cv03539 |
| June 13, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Contra Costa |
| Laurel Beeler |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 551 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
77
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 24 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by J.A., CASA, M.C., R.C., S.A., G.E., A.B., J.F., D.D..As set forth in the attached order, the court grants in part and de nies in part the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court denies the plaintiffs' motion to enjoin DHS from terminating the CAM Parole Program going forward. The court grants the motion to require DHS to continue to process the 2,714 conditionally approved beneficiaries under the procedures that it had in place for processing the beneficiaries before it terminated the Program and orders the following: (1) DHS's decision to mass-rescind conditional approvals for th e 2,714 beneficiaries conditionally approved for parole but who had not traveled to the United States is vacated, (2) DHS must continue the post-conditional-approval processing for the 2,714 beneficiaries under the policies and procedures for process ing beneficiaries that it had in place before January 2017, and is preliminarily enjoined from adopting any policy, procedure, or practice to not process the beneficiaries or to place their processing on hold en masse, and (3) by March 21, 2019, DHS must submit to the court and counsel its plan for processing these 2,714 beneficiaries with benchmarks for assessing compliance. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on March 1, 2019. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2019)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler denying 57 Administrative Motion to Stay Case. As set forth in the attached order, the court denies the defendants' motion to stay the case. The parties should continue to meet and confer in good faith regarding the briefing schedule and other matters in this case as necessary and appropriate. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2019)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Dismiss.As set forth in the attached order, the court denies the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act claims a s they relate to the government's mass-rescinding conditional approvals of parole made under the Central American Minors Parole Program. In all other respects, the court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court will address the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in a separate order. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2018)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 13 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem; granting 14 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem; granting 15 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem; granting 16 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. As set forth in the attached order, the court grants the petitions and appoints J.F. as guardian ad litem for A.F. and H.F., G.E. as guardian ad litem for B.E., and R.C. as guardian ad litem for J.C. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2018)
|
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 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.
