AL Rawahna v. Attorney General Of The United States et al
||Abdullah-Hamad AL Rawahna
||Attorney General Of The United States, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Field Office Director of the Ohio Field Office of ICE and Assistant Filed Office Director for the Department of Removal
||March 12, 2018
||US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
||Michael R. Barrett
||Karen L. Litkovitz
|Nature of Suit:
||Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|July 9, 2018
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 13 Report and Recommendation granting 9 Motion to Dismiss; denying 7 Motion for Bond; denying 12 Motion. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 7/9/18. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|June 18, 2018
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that respondent's 9 MOTION to Dismiss be Granted and petitioner's 1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus be Dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner's 7 MOTION for bail and 12 MOTION to Grant Habeas corpus should be Denied. A certificate of appealability should not issue. Any application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal would not be taken in good faith, and therefore should Deny petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 7/2/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 6/18/2018. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?