Rahman v. Blinken et al
| Mohammad Saidur Rahman |
| ANTHONY J BLINKEN, US Attorney General MERRICK B GARLAND, ALAJENDRO MAYORKAS, Richard C. Visek, Julie M. Tufft, Charles Adkins-Blanch, U.S. Ambassador to B PETER HAAS, Helen Lafave, William R. Dowers, Anthony J. Blinken, Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas and Peter Haas |
| 1:2022cv01207 |
| May 19, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Maryland |
| George Levi Russell |
| 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 June 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
MARGINAL ORDER approving #3 Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Mohammad Saidur Rahman. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 6/27/2022. (kk5s, Deputy Clerk)
|
| Filing 3 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Mohammad Saidur Rahman(Mahajan, Timothy) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued 60 days as to Charles Adkins-Blanch, Anthony J. Blinken, William R. Dowers, Merrick B. Garland, Peter Haas, Helen Lafave, Alejandro Mayorkas, Julie M. Tufft, Richard C. Visek, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General(kk5s, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AMDDC-9943878.), filed by Mohammad Saidur Rahman. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Summons)(Mahajan, Timothy) |
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 Maryland 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.
