Tran v. Nielson
| Vu Thanh Tran |
| Secretary Kirstjen Nielson |
| 8:2019cv00776 |
| March 11, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Maryland |
| George Jarrod Hazel |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 14, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number 84637034045 (nu, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Vu Thanh Tran. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(nu, Deputy Clerk) |
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
| Search for this case: Tran v. Nielson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Secretary Kirstjen Nielson | |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner: Vu Thanh Tran | |
| 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.
