Zhang v. Mayorkas et al
| Ning Zhang |
| Alejandro N. Mayorkas, US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Patricia A. Menges and USCIS Director Ur M. Jaddou |
| 1:2022cv05872 |
| October 1, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Diane Gujarati |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 4, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The United States Attorney, as attorney for Defendants, is directed to show cause on or before January 3, 2023, in writing, why a #1 Writ of Mandamus should not be issued, and shall serve a copy of the response on Plaintiff, with proof of such service to the Clerk of this Court. On or before February 2, 2023, Plaintiff shall file a reply, if any, with proof of service to the Clerk of this Court. Oral argument shall be heard on February 24, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. via teleconference before Judge Diane Gujarati. The call-in information for the telephone conference is 1-877-336-1839, and the access code is 2643682. The Parties should call in to the telephone conference five minutes before the conference begins. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of any court proceeding or communication with the Court are prohibited. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions. A transcript of the proceedings may be ordered from the Clerk's Office. If any party has difficulty accessing the telephone conference, please contact chambers at Gujarati_Chambers@nyed.uscourts.gov. SO ORDERED by Judge Diane Gujarati on 11/4/2022. (KA)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Artemis Lekakis on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Lekakis, Artemis) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Merrick B. Garland, Ur M. Jaddou, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Patricia A. Menges, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (KD) |
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) |
| 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. (KD) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Diane Gujarati. 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. (KD) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-15995672 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes,, filed by Ning Zhang. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons, #2 Exhibit, #3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Chen, Chiling) |
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.
