Haque v. United States Department of State et al
| MD Toffajol Haque |
| United States Department of State, U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Antony Blinken and Peter Haas |
| 1:2022cv07001 |
| November 16, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| 08 U.S.C. ยง 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by MD Toffajol Haque (Hacking, James) |
| Civil Case Terminated. See #9 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (EK) |
ORDER: Counsel for Plaintiff has submitted the #8 "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal." However, the signature block on this document indicates that counsel and his law firm are "Attorneys for Plaintiff Jahid Hasan Jony," who is not a party to this case. Counsel is directed to file a corrected notice of voluntary dismissal by 1/17/2023. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 1/12/2023. (EK)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by MD Toffajol Haque (Davis, Paul) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by MD Toffajol Haque. Antony Blinken served on 11/28/2022, answer due 1/27/2023; Peter Haas served on 11/28/2022, answer due 1/27/2023; U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh served on 11/28/2022, answer due 1/27/2023; United States Department of State served on 11/28/2022, answer due 1/27/2023. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Certified Mail Receipts) (Davis, Paul) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Daniel Volpe on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Volpe, Christopher) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Antony Blinken, Peter Haas, U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh, United States Department of State, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (KD) |
| Filing 4 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) |
| Filing 3 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 Pamela K. Chen. 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 2 Proposed Summons. Re #1 Complaint, by MD Toffajol Haque (Davis, Paul) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Antony Blinken, Peter Haas, U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh, United States Department of State filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-16144589 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO,, filed by MD Toffajol Haque. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) (Davis, Paul) |
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.
