Cao v. Nielsen et al
Plaintiff: Wei Bin Cao
Defendant: Donald Neufeld, Kirstjen Nielsen and Lee Francis Cissna
Case Number: 1:2018cv02193
Filed: April 13, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge: I Leo Glasser
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 05 U.S.C. ยง 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 13, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 13, 2018 Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Lee Francis Cissna, Donald Neufeld, Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Davis, Kimberly)
April 13, 2018 Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly)
April 13, 2018 Filing 2 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly)
April 13, 2018 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Lee Francis Cissna, Donald Neufeld, Kirstjen Nielsen filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0207-10353782 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -N/A,, filed by Wei Bin Cao. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons) (Lee, Corey)
April 13, 2018 Case Assigned to Judge I. Leo Glasser. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Davis, Kimberly)

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 this case: Cao v. Nielsen et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Donald Neufeld
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 ]
Defendant: Kirstjen Nielsen
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 ]
Defendant: Lee Francis Cissna
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 ]
Plaintiff: Wei Bin Cao
Represented By: Corey T Lee
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.


Why Is My Information Online?