Doe v. Mullin

A status report was filed in the case on 2026-06-16. The docket entry provides no details about the report’s contents or any court action related to it.

A docket entry on 2026-06-11 records the filing of a “Notice - Other.” The entry gives no details about the notice’s content, purpose, or any court action resulting from it.

The docket entry appears to indicate that a filing labeled “Notice - Other” was filed on 2026-06-11; the entry provides no details about who filed it or its substance or effect. The exact purpose and any procedural consequences are unclear from this entry alone.

The court noted that a prior vacatur in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS likely has preclusive effect for the plaintiffs, ordered the government to file a status report about the adjudication status of each plaintiff's pending immigration benefits applications, and reserved ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief.

The clerk reset the in-person hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order to June 9, 2026 at 10:00 AM and changed the courtroom location to Courtroom 2. The notice states the change was to the courtroom only.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Additional Authority and Supplemental Post‑Briefing Developments attaching one exhibit; the entry was filed on 2026-06-06 and the text was modified on 2026-06-08. The docket entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any court action or scheduled event.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authorities in support of their pending motion for a temporary restraining order and attached one exhibit labeled "Exhibit A." The docket entry notes the event type was modified on 2026-06-04 and does not indicate any court ruling.

On June 2, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Leave to File” and submitted four exhibits attached to that motion. The docket entry records the filing only and does not indicate any ruling or scheduled hearing.

On 2026-06-01 (entered 06/02/2026), the plaintiffs filed a sealed notice that identifies their true names and the relevant USCIS identifiers.

The court entered an order allowing the plaintiffs' motion to proceed pseudonymously until further order. The court directed the plaintiffs to file, under seal, a notice identifying their true names and relevant USCIS identifiers for the court and defendants by June 2, 2026.

The court entered an electronic order granting the plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (document no. 4); the plaintiffs' motion to seal is allowed.

The court entered an order granting the defendants' assented-to motion for leave to file a memorandum exceeding the 20-page limit; the allowance is entered nunc pro tunc. The entry does not state any additional deadlines or hearings.

The clerk's office reset the motion hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order to June 9, 2026 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 before Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper; the hearing is in-person only.

The court entered an electronic order granting document 17, a motion to continue the scheduled hearing. The entry indicates the judge allowed the continuance but does not specify a new hearing date or further deadlines.

The defendants filed a motion asking the court to continue a hearing. The entry does not identify which hearing, propose a new date, or indicate any court ruling on the request.

The clerk issued a notice scheduling an in-person hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order for May 29, 2026 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 10 before Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper.

On 2026-05-15, the defendants filed an assented-to motion seeking leave to file a submission that exceeds the court's page limits (a motion for leave to file excess pages).

The defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (document 5); the docket entry records the filing and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The plaintiffs filed a stipulation that was entered on the docket on 2026-05-08; the entry does not state the stipulation’s contents or any court action resulting from it.

Attorney Eve A. Piemonte filed a notice of appearance indicating she will represent defendants Joseph B. Edlow and Markwayne Mullin in the case.

The plaintiffs filed a notice informing the court that they have filed a motion to consolidate; the filing includes one exhibit.

The plaintiffs filed three exhibits (Attachments #1–#3) in support of their previously filed motion for a temporary restraining order; the exhibits were entered on May 1, 2026.

The docket entry indicates an affidavit of service was filed on 2026-04-28 stating that the plaintiffs executed service on all defendants, and an acknowledgement by the plaintiffs was also filed. The entry is a record of service and does not itself reflect a court ruling or schedule change.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint against all defendants on 2026-04-27 and paid the $405 filing fee. The filing includes an exhibit, a civil cover sheet, and a category form.

The clerk electronically assigned the case to Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper. The notice states that if the trial judge issues an Order of Reference, those matters will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court for permission to proceed pseudonymously (to keep their identities hidden) on April 27, 2026. The entry reflects the filing of that motion but does not indicate any court ruling on it.

On 2026-04-27 the plaintiffs, through counsel, filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order. The docket entry records the filing of the motion but does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

On April 27, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to seal a document (Motion to Seal Document). The entry reflects the filing only and does not state any court action on the motion.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion to proceed pseudonymously on 2026-04-27.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion for a temporary restraining order on April 27, 2026. The entry reflects the filing of that memorandum and does not specify any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The clerk issued summonses for defendants Joseph B. Edlow and Markwayne Mullin. Counsel who received this notice electronically are instructed to download and complete a summons for each defendant and serve them under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and Local Rule 4.1; summonses will be mailed to plaintiffs who did not receive electronic notice for completion of service.