Francois v. United States Department of Homeland Security

The court confirmed that the joint motion hearing and status conference will proceed on June 9, 2026 as scheduled, noted the defendants represent USCIS has adjudicated the plaintiff’s EAD through July 1, 2026 and contend the case is moot, and stated no further briefing on the Doe decision is needed at this time unless the Court directs otherwise.

The defendants filed a response to the court's Order at Docket No. 21 and attached a document labeled “EAD Approval.”

Attorney Eve A. Piemonte filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the defendants in the case.

The court entered an order appointing Sara Bloom of Massachusetts Deportation Defense as pro bono counsel to represent the plaintiff under the Court’s plan for appointment of counsel; the appointment continues until the litigation is terminated or the Court revokes it.

The defendants filed a supplemental notice referencing the court’s Dkt. No. 21 order and mentioning topics such as terminating motions and setting hearings; the docket text is terse and the exact substance or procedural effect of the notice is unclear from this entry.

Counsel for the defendants filed a notice (entered 06/01/2026) referencing the court’s Dkt. No. 21 order and appearing to concern compliance with that order. The docket text is brief and the exact substantive content or procedural effect of the notice is unclear from the entry.

The defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, attaching a supporting declaration; the filing's main document was replaced on the same day.

The clerk sent an electronic copy of the court's May 29 order to the plaintiff by email on May 29, 2026, and will mail a paper copy on June 1, 2026.

The defendants filed a motion requesting leave to file a submission that exceeds the court's 20-page page limit.

A notice of appearance was filed indicating counsel has entered an appearance on behalf of the defendants, including federal agency and individual defendants. The entry does not set any court date or filing deadline.

The district judge entered an electronic order granting the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 3).

The docket entry indicates the court issued summonses for the named defendants and directed counsel who received electronic notice to download and complete one summons per defendant and serve them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and Local Rule 4.1; summonses will be mailed to any plaintiff(s) who did not receive electronic notice for completion of service.

The clerk mailed copies of the court's order (doc. 12), four issued summons, the order on the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 11), the complaint, and the docket sheets to the plaintiff on 2026-05-28.

The court sent the plaintiff a notice containing instructions for service by the U.S. Marshals Service, a copy of Local Rule 4.1, and a copy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i); it also notes the USM-285 form is available online or from the Clerk.

The court clerk mailed the plaintiff a copy of the referenced notice and four USM-285 (U.S. Marshals Service) forms on May 28, 2026.

On 2026-05-29 the plaintiff filed a certificate of service under Local Rule 5.2 stating she served the complaint and her motions to expedite and for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. Nos. 1, 4, and 2).

The judge entered an electronic order requiring the defendants to respond to the pending motions (Doc. Nos. 2 and 4) by May 29, 2026 at 12:00 p.m., noting that an authorization allegedly expires on May 31, 2026.

The plaintiff filed a certification addressing the notice requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(B).

On 2026-05-27 the plaintiff filed a declaration supporting the plaintiff's emergency motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

The plaintiff filed a declaration in support of her emergency motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

The court issued an electronic notice assigning the case to District Judge Leo T. Sorokin; the notice states that if the trial judge issues an order of reference, matters will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley.