Zheng v. Barr et al
| Zhong Liang Zheng |
| Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Thomas Cioppa, William Barr, Christopher A. Wray and L. Francis Cissna |
| 1:2019cv02572 |
| March 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Lorna G Schofield |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 22, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (jgo) |
| Filing 1 PETITION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS against William Barr, Thomas Cioppa, L. Francis Cissna, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Christopher A. Wray (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number 465401231666).Document filed by Zhong Liang Zheng.(jgo) |
| Magistrate Judge James L. Cott is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #http://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms.php. (jgo) |
| Case Designated ECF. (jgo) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to L. Francis Cissna. (jgo) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to William Barr. (jgo) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to Christopher A. Wray. (jgo) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to Kirstjen M. Nielsen. (jgo) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to Thomas Cioppa., SUMMONS ISSUED as to Thomas Cioppa, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (jgo) |
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 Southern 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.
