CHOPRA v. BLINKEN et al
| RITU CHOPRA |
| SECRETARY ANTHONY BLINKEN, DIRECTOR PEGGY PETROVICH, CHARGE D' AFFAI SEAN MURPHY, ANTHONY BLINKEN, PEGGY PETROVICH and SEAN MURPHY |
| 1:2023cv02458 |
| August 23, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Randolph D Moss |
| Immigration: Other Immigration Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 18, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr on behalf of All Defendants (Molina, Ernesto) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS (5) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: #1 Notice and Consent)(zsl) |
Filing 2
STANDING ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives set forth in the attached Standing Order. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 08/25/2023. (lcrdm3)
|
| Case Assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. (zsl) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against ANTHONY BLINKEN, SEAN MURPHY, PEGGY PETROVICH ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-10299484) filed by RITU CHOPRA. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons DOS SUMMONS, #3 Summons NVC SUMMONS, #4 Summons EMBASSY UAE SUMMONS, #5 Summons USAO Proposed Summons, #6 Summons DOJ SUMMONS)(Cook, William) |
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 District Of Columbia 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.
