Tang v. Chertoff et al
Xin Tang |
Michael Chertoff, Mary Ann Gartner and Alberto Gonzales |
1:2007cv01297 |
March 28, 2007 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
Brooklyn Office |
Kings |
John Gleeson |
Cheryl L Pollak |
Mandamus & Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 16, 2007. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
![]() |
Filing 9 MOTION to Dismiss as Moot by Michael Chertoff. (Dunn, Scott) |
Filing 8 MINUTE ENTRY for Initial Conference proceeding before MJ Pollak on 7/2/2007. Conference adjourned to 9/24/07 @ 12:30 PM. (Caggiano, Diana) |
Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Dunn on behalf of Michael Chertoff (aty to be noticed) (Dunn, Scott) |
Filing 6 Letter by Michael Chertoff (Dunn, Scott) |
![]() |
Filing 4 Letter concerning case status by Xin Tang (Cox, Theodore) |
![]() |
Filing 2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Xin Tang. Michael Chertoff served on 3/28/2007, answer due 5/28/2007; Mary Ann Gartner served on 3/28/2007, answer due 5/28/2007; Alberto Gonzales served on 3/28/2007, answer due 5/28/2007. (Cox, Theodore) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Michael Chertoff, Mary Ann Gartner, Alberto Gonzales $ 350, filed by Xin Tang. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Bowens, Priscilla) |
Summons Issued as to Michael Chertoff, Mary Ann Gartner, Alberto Gonzales. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
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 New York Eastern 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.