AL Rawahna v. Attorney General Of The United States et al

Petitioner: Abdullah-Hamad AL Rawahna
Respondent: 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
Case Number: 1:2018cv00175
Filed: March 12, 2018
Court: Ohio Southern District Court
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: BUTLER
Presiding Judge: Michael R. Barrett
Referring Judge: Karen L. Litkovitz
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 8:1105
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
July 9, 2018 14 Opinion or Order of the Court 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 13 Opinion or Order of the Court 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

Search for this case: AL Rawahna v. Attorney General Of The United States et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Abdullah-Hamad AL Rawahna
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Attorney General Of The United States
Represented By: Nicholas John Pantel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Represented By: Nicholas John Pantel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Field Office Director of the Ohio Field Office of ICE
Represented By: Nicholas John Pantel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Assistant Filed Office Director for the Department of Removal
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?