MUHAMMAD v. USA
Plaintiff: AIYDA MUHAMMAD
Defendant: USA
Case Number: 1:2022cv00575
Filed: May 23, 2022
Court: United States Federal Claims Court
Presiding Judge: Matthew H Solomson
Nature of Suit: Unjust conviction and Imprisonment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1491 Tucker Act
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 29, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 JUDGMENT entered, pursuant to Rule 58, dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Service on parties made; plaintiff served via first class mail. ) (dls)
June 29, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 UNREPORTED OPINION: Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the government. Signed by Judge Matthew H. Solomson. (jmt) Service on parties made; plaintiff served via first class mail. (dls)
June 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Jimmy S. McBirney for USA . (McBirney, Jimmy)
May 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER STAYING CASE: This case is STAYED as the Court evaluates the complaint, sua sponte, for probable lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Signed by Judge Matthew H. Solomson. (jmt) Service on parties made. Modified on 5/27/2022 Plaintiff served via U.S. mail. (hw1).
May 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 REISSUED AMENDED GENERAL ORDER No. 2 dated 3/3/2021 continuing the suspension of paper filing requirements in pro se cases: Consistent with this court's General Order issued on 3/18/2020, it is ordered that judges, special masters, the Clerk of Court, and counsel of record for the United States may file electronically in pro se cases using the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. Pro se litigants shall, absent extraordinary circumstances, submit all case filings via e-mail to ProSe_case_filings@cfc.uscourts.gov. Pro se litigants may, if feasible, receive notification by e-mail of all electronic filings by filing an E-Notification Consent Form, attached to the General Order. Signed by Chief Judge Elaine D. Kaplan. (sh) Service on parties made. Modified on 5/27/2022 Plaintiff served via U.S. mail. (hw1).
May 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 NOTICE of Non-ECF Case. (sh) Modified on 5/27/2022 Plaintiff served via U.S. mail. (hw1).
May 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Notice of Random Assignment Pursuant to Rule 40.1(a) to Judge Matthew H. Solomson. (sh) Modified on 5/27/2022 Plaintiff served via U.S. mail. (hw1).
May 23, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against USA (VAR) (Filing fee $402, Receipt number CFC) (Copy Served Electronically on Department of Justice), filed by AIYDA MUHAMMAD. Answer due by 7/25/2022. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) Exhibit has been sealed pursuant to RCFC 5.2.(sh)

Search for this case: MUHAMMAD v. USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: AIYDA MUHAMMAD
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: USA
Represented By: Jimmy S. McBirney
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?