Franciscot Auguste v. Joseph B. Edlow

A docket entry labeled “Discovery” was entered on 2026-08-18. The entry provides no details about what discovery was served, filed, or ordered, so the exact nature and effect are unclear from the entry text.

The court issued an order scheduling a conference in this case for October 16, 2026 at 11:00 AM before Judge John W. Holcomb.

The plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of an application for discovery seeking 110 interrogatories intended to inform the court of the positions of 110 plaintiffs' green-card applications in the adjudication queue. The filing was entered on 2026-08-16.

An objection or opposition related to a motion was filed on August 13, 2026; the docket entry provides only the brief label “Objection/Opposition (Motion related)” and does not state who filed it or which motion it addresses.

On 2026-08-13 a document titled "Memorandum in Opposition to Motion" was filed. The docket entry does not state which motion is opposed or who filed the memorandum.

The docket entry indicates a voluntary dismissal of party(ies) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) was filed on 2026-08-10; the entry does not identify who filed it, which party(ies) were dismissed, or whether the dismissal disposes of the case.

The docket entry appears to be a notice informing the court and parties that another court issued a decision; the entry provides no details about the decision's content, date, or any effect on this case.

On 2026-08-03 the docket shows a single entry labeled "Discovery." The entry contains no additional information about what discovery was served, filed, or ordered, nor does it state any deadlines or next steps.

The docket entry dated 2026-08-03 consists only of the brief notation "Dismiss Case." The entry does not state who moved for or ordered dismissal, whether the dismissal was voluntary or by court order, or whether it disposes of the entire case.

The docket entry appears to indicate that a voluntary dismissal of party(ies) was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) on July 25, 2026; the entry does not state which party(ies) were dismissed or whether the dismissal disposes of the case.

The docket entry appears to indicate an extension of time to file an answer by more than 30 days; the entry does not state who requested the extension or the new deadline.

A docket entry labeled "Notice (Other)" was entered on July 7, 2026; the entry text provides no details about the content, sender, or purpose of the notice.

The court approved the parties' stipulation and extended the defendant's time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint to July 18, 2026.

The defendant filed a stipulation requesting an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint until July 18, 2026, attaching a Declaration of Haena Lee and a proposed order.

The court advanced the hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and set it for May 27, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., directing counsel to appear in person in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building in Santa Ana. This replaces the previously scheduled May 29, 2026 date and time.

The court granted the defendant's ex parte request for more time and extended the deadline for the defendant to respond to the complaint to June 18, 2026.

The defendant filed an ex parte application requesting an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint until June 18, 2026, attaching a declaration and a proposed order. The docket entry does not indicate whether the court has granted or ruled on the request.

The plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction that seeks to enjoin defendants from holding decisions on the plaintiffs' Forms I-485; the filing includes two exhibits (slip opinions from Roghaee v. Mullin, C.D. Cal. May 4, 2026, and Aye Su Mon v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., C.D. Cal. May 1, 2026).

The defendant Joseph B. Edlow filed an opposition to the petitioners' motion for preliminary injunction.

An attorney filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the defendant Joseph B. Edlow.

The court issued a scheduling notice continuing the hearing on the petitioners' motion for preliminary injunction from May 8, 2026 to May 29, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., and directed counsel to appear in person in Courtroom 9D.

The petitioners filed an errata correcting page 22 of the complaint.

The clerk issued a notice of deficiency stating the request for entry of default was forwarded to the assigned judge and could not be entered by the clerk.

The petitioner filed proof of service showing that the motion for preliminary injunction (and exhibits) was served on April 3, 2026.

A group of petitioners filed a request that the clerk enter default against defendant Joseph B. Edlow.

Two individual petitioners filed notices voluntarily dismissing their claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) as to defendant Joseph B. Edlow.

An individual petitioner filed a notice voluntarily dismissing his claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1); the filing states that the remaining individual petitioners do not dismiss their claims at this time.

Three individual petitioners filed notices voluntarily dismissing their claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1); the filings state that the remaining individual petitioners do not dismiss their claims at this time.

Two individual petitioners filed notices voluntarily dismissing their claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) as to defendant Joseph B. Edlow.

Multiple petitioners filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to enjoin defendants from holding decisions on petitioners' Forms I-485; the filing noted a hearing set for 2026-05-08 at 09:00 AM before Judge John W. Holcomb.

An individual petitioner filed a notice voluntarily dismissing his claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1); the filing states that the remaining individual petitioners do not dismiss their claims at this time.

Two individual petitioners filed notices voluntarily dismissing their claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1); the filings state that the remaining individual petitioners do not dismiss their claims at this time.

The petitioner filed proof of service showing that the summons and complaint were served on the United States Attorney's Office and other agencies/offices as listed.

A standing order issued by Judge John W. Holcomb was entered on the docket.

On 2026-03-20 the plaintiff filed a complaint (filing fee $405). The filing included three exhibits — the December 2, 2025 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192, the January 1, 2026 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194, and a USCIS email to Senator Adam Schiff's office — and attorney Hamdy Maher Masri was added as counsel for the plaintiff.

The case was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Douglas McCormick to District Judge John W. Holcomb for all further proceedings, with discovery matters possibly assigned to Magistrate Judge John D. Early.

The petitioner filed a notice identifying interested parties in the case.

The clerk notified the parties that the case was assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick and recorded a declination of consent.

The petitioner requested that the clerk issue a summons on the complaint in the civil case opening.

A 60-day summons was issued as to the defendant Joseph B. Edlow in connection with the complaint.

A civil cover sheet was filed by the petitioner as part of opening the case.

A declination of consent form was received and filed with the court on the stated date.