Alireza Roghaee v. Markwayne Mullin

A docket entry titled "Attorney Fees AND Dismiss Case" was filed on September 16, 2026; the entry provides no additional information about who filed it or whether it is a motion, a stipulation, or a court order, so the exact procedural effect is unclear from the entry alone.

A Notice of Lodging was filed in the case on 2026-09-08. The docket entry provides no details about what document was lodged or any procedural effect.

A filing labeled only as “Notice (Other)” was entered on September 8, 2026. The docket entry provides no information about who filed it, its substance, or any procedural effect.

A reply brief related to a motion was filed in the case on September 7, 2026. The docket entry provides no information about which motion the reply addresses, who filed it, or any court ruling associated with the filing.

A Notice of Lodging was filed on 2026-09-06. The entry does not state what document was lodged, who filed it, or any resulting deadlines or court action.

A reply brief related to a motion was filed on 2026-09-04; the docket entry provides no information about who filed it or which motion it responds to.

The docket entry indicates the court issued an order referring the case to alternative dispute resolution for private mediation. The entry does not state any mediator name, mediation date, or further scheduling details.

The docket entry records minutes of an in-chambers order or directive and notes that no proceeding was held; the entry does not state the substance of the order or any next steps.

A Pretrial-Trial Scheduling Order (form only) was filed on 2026-09-01; the docket entry provides no substantive scheduling dates or other details.

The docket entry records minutes of an in-chambers order or directive noting that no proceeding was held and indicates the court set or reset deadlines/hearings and terminated hearings. The entry does not identify which deadlines or hearings were changed or provide any specific dates or details.

The docket entry indicates that an objection or opposition to a motion was filed on 2026-08-31; the entry does not identify who filed it, which motion is opposed, or any court action or ruling. The exact procedural effect and the substance of the opposition are unclear from the entry text.

The docket entry is labeled “Report” and contains no further information; the entry does not state who filed the report, its contents, or any procedural effect. The exact purpose and impact of this entry are unclear from the docket text alone.

The filing is a proposed order that would have vacated the September 14, 2026 scheduling conference and related Rule 26(f) deadlines, but the document is stamped “DENIED BY ORDER OF THE COURT” with the notation “NO SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE.”

The docket entry for 2026-08-27 consists solely of the single word “Vacate.” The exact procedural effect is unclear from the entry text; it appears to indicate something was vacated but does not state what was vacated, who acted, or any resulting obligations.

The court issued an in-chambers order continuing the hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss from August 24, 2026 to September 21, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., stating the change was made in light of a pending motion for attorney fees scheduled that day. The order simply resets the hearing date and time.

A Notice of Lodging was filed on August 12, 2026. The entry does not state what document was lodged or any resulting court action or deadline.

The docket entry indicates a Notice of Lodging was filed on 2026-08-12. The entry provides no detail about what document was lodged or any court action or schedule tied to the lodging.

On 2026-08-10 the court docket shows an entry titled “Withdrawal (Document or Motion).” The entry gives no information about which document or motion was withdrawn, who filed the withdrawal, or the effect of the withdrawal.

A reply brief related to a motion was filed on August 10, 2026; the entry does not identify which motion it responds to, who filed the reply, or any court action or ruling on the motion.

A reply brief was filed on 2026-08-10 in connection with a motion; the entry does not identify which motion, who filed it, or any court action or ruling arising from the filing.

On August 3, 2026 the docket shows an entry labeled “Attorney Fees.” The entry provides no further information about what form this took (e.g., a motion, request, notice, or court order) or its procedural effect, so the exact purpose and outcome are unclear from the entry alone.

The docket entry indicates that an Objection/Opposition (motion-related) was filed on August 3, 2026. The entry does not state who filed it, which motion it opposes, or any court action or ruling resulting from the filing.

The court issued an initial, form-only order setting a Rule 26 scheduling conference. The entry does not state any specific date or time for the conference.

The docket entry dated July 14, 2026 is labeled simply “Dismiss Case.” The entry contains no additional information, so the exact procedural effect—who filed or whether the court ordered dismissal, and whether it was with or without prejudice—is unclear from the entry alone.

A docket entry labeled “Statement” was filed on July 9, 2026; the entry provides no further information about the content, who filed it, or its procedural effect.

The docket entry is labeled "Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less)." The entry does not state who sought the extension, the new deadline, or whether the court granted or set a specific date.

The plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration attaching an employer letter in support of the ex parte TRO application. This is additional evidentiary material supporting the emergency request.

The defendants filed a notice stating they do not oppose the plaintiff's ex parte application for emergency injunctive relief. This indicates defendants did not contest the emergency motion.

The plaintiff filed an additional proof of service showing various documents (including the amended complaint, ex parte filings, and declarations) were served on April 28, 2026. This confirms service of multiple filings on the defendants.

A 60-day summons was issued on the amended complaint as to the named defendants. This initiates the formal service period for those defendants.

The newly assigned judge issued a standing order that controls case procedures and may differ from local rules; the order advises counsel to read it carefully. This sets docket-management expectations for the case.

The plaintiff filed a proof of service showing that the ex parte application and related filings were served on the defendants on April 27, 2026. This documents that defendants received the emergency filings.

The plaintiff filed a first ex parte application seeking emergency relief including a temporary restraining order, an order compelling USCIS to decide and approve the plaintiff's I-765 before the end of May, and a declaratory judgment regarding two policy memoranda; a hearing on the ex parte application was set for April 30, 2026. The filing included declarations and a proposed order.

The plaintiff filed an ex parte application requesting permission to exceed the page limit for the memorandum supporting the ex parte TRO motion and submitted a proposed order. This is a procedural request about briefing length.

The plaintiff submitted a declaration in support of the complaint. This is evidentiary support for the pleadings.

The clerk identified deficiencies in the plaintiff's earlier summons request, explaining the summons caption did not match the complaint and instructing how to correct it before the summons can be issued. The filing cannot proceed until corrected.

The clerk issued a notice to counsel regarding consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. This is an informational administrative notice.

The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding or amending defendants and attaching exhibits. This replaces or supplements the initial complaint.

A second declaration (by another declarant) was filed in support of the complaint. This provides additional factual support for the plaintiff's filings.

After amending the complaint, the plaintiff submitted a corrected request for the clerk to issue a summons on the amended complaint. This is an administrative step toward service.

The case was assigned to a district judge and a magistrate judge as part of standard case administration. The notice informs counsel which judges are handling the matter.

A civil cover sheet was filed by the plaintiff as part of the case opening documents. This is a routine filing required at case commencement.

The plaintiff filed a certificate of interested parties identifying none. This is an administrative disclosure filing.

The plaintiff filed the initial federal complaint seeking mandamus and APA relief to compel USCIS to decide a pending I-765 and to challenge two USCIS policy memoranda, and paid the filing fee. The complaint requests expedited adjudication and issuance of an EAD, attorneys' fees, and other relief.

The plaintiff requested that the clerk issue a summons based on the complaint. This is an administrative filing to begin service proceedings.