Hasan v. Blinken, et al.
| MD Mahmudul Hassan |
| Anthony J. Blinken, Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Richard C. Visek, Julie M. Tufft, Charles Adkins-Blanch, Earl R. Miller, Helen Lafave and William R Dowers |
| 8:2022cv00125 |
| January 17, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Maryland |
| George Jarrod Hazel |
| 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 January 31, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Vickie LeDuc on behalf of Charles Adkins-Blanch, Anthony J. Blinken, William R Dowers, Merrick B. Garland, Helen Lafave, Alejandro Mayorkas, Earl R. Miller, Julie M. Tufft, Richard C. Visek (LeDuc, Vickie) |
| Case Reassigned to Judge George Jarrod Hazel. Judge Richard D. Bennett no longer assigned to the case. (kns, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued 60 days as to Charles Adkins-Blanch, Anthony J. Blinken, William R Dowers, Merrick B. Garland, Helen Lafave, Alejandro Mayorkas, Earl R. Miller, Julie M. Tufft, Richard C. Visek, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (dass, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0416-9702686.), filed by MD MAHMUDUL HASAN. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons 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.
