Gu v. Garland et al
| Ying Gu |
| US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Patricia A. Menges |
| 1:2022cv05008 |
| August 24, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Margo K Brodie |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Civil Case Terminated. (WV) |
| Filing 8 STIPULATION of Dismissal Without Prejudice, Signed by the Parties by Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Patricia A. Menges (Speight, Melanie) |
Filing 7
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and Electronic Service upon the US Attorneys Office re #1 Complaint, filed by Ying Gu. The United States Attorney, as attorney for defendants, is directed to show cause on or before 12/1/23, in writing, why a writ of mandamus should not be issued, and shall service a copy of the response on plaintiff, with proof of such service to the Clerk of this Court. On or before 2/1/23, plaintiff shall file her reply, if any, with proof of service to the Clerk of this Court. Oral Argument shall be heard on 2/16/2023 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6F North before Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie. So Ordered by Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/1/2022. Service made electronically via ECF. (Piper, Francine)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Melanie M. Speight on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Speight, Melanie) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ying Gu. Merrick B. Garland served on 8/26/2022, answer due 10/25/2022; Alejandro N. Mayorkas served on 8/26/2022, answer due 10/25/2022; Patricia A. Menges served on 8/26/2022, answer due 10/25/2022. (Gu, Wei) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Patricia A. Menges, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Davis, Kimberly) |
| 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) |
| 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) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Patricia A. Menges filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-15873216 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -YES,, filed by Ying Gu. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Proposed Summons) (Gu, Wei) |
| Case Assigned to Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie. 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 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.
