Negash v. Garland et al
Henos S. Negash |
Antonio Donis, Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur M. Jaddou and Merrick B. Garland |
8:2024cv03197 |
November 4, 2024 |
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland |
Deborah L Boardman |
Other Statutory Actions |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 31, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 6 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Henos S. Negash as to Antonio Donis.(kk5s, Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Henos S. Negash. Merrick B. Garland served on 12/26/2024, answer due 2/24/2025; Ur M. Jaddou served on 12/26/2024, answer due 2/24/2025; Alejandro Mayorkas served on 12/26/2024, answer due 2/24/2025. (Attachments: #1 Summons Mayorkas, #2 Summons Jaddou, #3 Summons U.S. Attorney)(kk5s, Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 4 Summons Issued 60 days as to Antonio Donis, Merrick B. Garland, Ur M. Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General(c/m 12/17/2024)(kk5s, Deputy Clerk) |
![]() |
Filing 2 New Case Notification Letter sent to Henos S. Negash. (c/m to P 11/5/24- Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Antonio Donis, Merrick B. Garland, Ur M. Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number 2407.), filed by Henos S. Negash. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Summons)(ar6s, Deputy Clerk) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.