E.M.P.C. v. Noem

A filing titled “Response/Reply (Other)” was docketed on 2026-07-03; the attached PDF appears to be non-readable/binary and the docket entry provides no details about the substance of the filing or its procedural effect.

The docket entry indicates the court entered an order addressing the petitioner’s Motion to Sever and the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The entry does not state the court’s specific rulings or any resulting deadlines, so the exact procedural effect is unclear from the entry text.

The docket entry records a filing titled "Response/Reply (Other)" filed on 2026-07-01; the attached PDF appears to be non-readable binary content and the entry does not state who filed it or what it responds to. The exact procedural effect or substance of the filing is unclear from the entry text.

The docket entry indicates the court entered an order on June 26, 2026 (a paperless order or PDF is attached). The entry does not state the order’s substance, disposition, or any procedural effect, so the exact impact is unclear from the entry text.

The court granted defendants’ unopposed expedited motion to stay the deadline to respond to the related plaintiffs’ complaint (previously set for June 29, 2026) and reset the response deadline to within seven days after the court enters an order on the related plaintiffs’ Motion to Sever (ECF No. 50). The consolidated plaintiffs do not oppose the stay.

An entry titled "Answer to Amended Complaint" was filed on 2026-06-25. The docket text shows only that the answer was filed and does not state who filed it or any court action or ruling associated with the filing.

The docket reflects a filing labeled "Notice (Other)" was filed on 2026-06-25. The entry contains no further information about the notice’s contents or any procedural effect.

A Report and Recommendations was filed on June 25, 2026. The docket entry provides only that a report and recommendations exist and does not describe their substance, recommendations, or any deadlines or next steps.

The docket contains a one-word entry: "Stay," dated 2026-06-25. The entry provides no information about who filed or entered the stay, its scope, duration, or any related deadlines, so the exact procedural effect is unclear.

A Notice of Supplemental Authority was filed on June 24, 2026; the docket entry provides no information about what authority was cited or the party who filed it.

On 2026-06-11 the docket reflects the filing titled "Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal." The entry provides no additional detail about who filed it, its contents, or any court action resulting from the filing.

A magistrate judge granted the previously filed motion to amend/correct the second amended complaint and directed the filer to separately re-file the amended pleading pursuant to Local Rule 15.1 unless the judge orders otherwise.

A notice was filed under Local Rule 3.8 informing the court of a separately filed, related district action that also challenges the same USCIS memoranda and additionally challenges Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. The filing asks the court to consider severing the consolidated matter from the larger case and then consolidating it with the related action so the court can address PM-602-0199 in a single proceeding, and states the related plaintiffs would file a supplemental preliminary-injunction motion to avoid duplicative briefing; it also notes a prior preliminary-injunction hearing in the related case on May 5, 2026.

A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on June 5, 2026, recommending that the court grant the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to sever and return their claims to their original docket. The R&R notifies parties that objections to the recommendation are due by June 22, 2026 and that any party intending to object must file a notice of intent within five days of service.

The Travieso plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching a June 5, 2026 District of Rhode Island Memorandum and Order in Dorcas v. USCIS, which they state declared and vacated several USCIS policies (Benefits Hold Policy; Global Asylum Hold Policy; Comprehensive Re-Review Policy; Country-Specific Factors Policy). They argue their pending motions are not moot (citing the government’s right to appeal and differences between the cases), and state they are finalizing a new complaint to challenge those agency rules plus USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.

A docket entry titled "Amend/Correct" was filed on 2026-05-29. The entry provides no details about the substance of the amendment or correction, who filed it, or any procedural effect.

The docket entry appears to record that the court entered an order addressing a motion for an extension of time to file a response, reply, or answer. The entry does not state who sought the extension, whether the court granted or denied it, or any new deadline created by the order.

The docket entry indicates the court entered an order referring a motion. The entry does not identify which motion was referred, to whom it was referred, or specify any deadlines or next steps.

The docket entry indicates a filing titled “Response/Reply (Other)” was filed on 2026-05-27; the entry provides no details about the filing’s content, author, or any court action or effect.

The docket entry is titled "Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer" and appears to reflect that an extension to file a response, reply, or answer was filed or recorded; the entry provides no details about who sought the extension, whether the court granted it, or what new deadline (if any) was set.

The docket entry appears to indicate an extension of time to file a response/reply/answer was filed or recorded on 2026-05-27. The entry does not identify who sought the extension, state whether the court granted it, or provide any new deadline.

The docket entry appears to indicate that a filing titled “Response/Reply (Other)” was filed on 2026-05-26, but the entry provides no further detail about the content, the party who filed it, or its procedural effect.

The docket contains a one-word entry, “Sever,” dated 2026-05-22. The entry is ambiguous and does not indicate who filed it or what specific procedural effect (if any) occurred.

A notice of supplemental authority was filed on 2026-05-19.

A response in opposition to a motion was filed on 2026-05-18.

Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on 2026-05-18.

Another response in opposition to a motion was filed on 2026-05-18.

A notice was filed indicating that additional parties were entered into the court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF).

Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority citing a Northern District of Georgia opinion relevant to the USCIS policy memoranda.

A party filed a notice identifying pending, refiled, related, or similar actions.

The petitioner filed an amended complaint or an amended notice of removal.

The court entered an order referring the case to a magistrate judge.

The docket shows the court entered an order on the Motion to Amend/Correct; the entry does not state the order's specific disposition.

Plaintiffs filed a response opposing Defendants' notice of supplemental authority, arguing the cited decision is distinguishable and citing appellate decisions on jurisdiction.

Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching a district-court order denying a preliminary injunction against the challenged USCIS policy memoranda.

A notice was filed indicating withdrawal of a motion; the docket entry provides no detail about which motion was withdrawn or any court action.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching the Meschi v. Edlow preliminary-injunction order.

Plaintiffs filed another notice of supplemental authority attaching Doe v. Trump (D. Mass.) as additional authority.

The petitioner filed a notice that the Motion to Certify Class was served on the plaintiffs in the related Travieso case.

The petitioner filed a Motion to Amend/Correct and for leave to file separate documents, with responses listed as due by 2026-05-13.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching Saghafi v. Edlow as additional authority for their filings.

Plaintiffs in the related Travieso action filed a reply in support of their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

The petitioner filed a reply in support of the Motion to Enforce the Consolidation Order.

The petitioner filed a notice confirming service of the Motion to Certify Class.

Multiple plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion to Enforce Consolidation Order; the docket notes replies are due by 2026-05-01.

Defendants filed a motion asking the court to continue a previously set hearing; the docket entry states responses to that motion are due by 2026-05-07.

The petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce the court's consolidation order; the docket entry states responses are due by 2026-05-07.

The docket entry schedules a motion hearing on May 1, 2026 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez in the Miami Division to address ECF Nos. 5 and 6 and ECF No. 15 (member case 1:26-cv-21935). The hearing notice was signed on April 23, 2026.

Defendants Kristi Noem, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security filed a response in opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The entry states that replies are due by April 29, 2026.

A notice was filed informing the court of numerous pending, refiled, related, or similar actions involving many individual parties. The filing also reflects that attorney Mark Andrew Prada was added as counsel for three plaintiff parties.

On 2026-04-13 the plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the pending TRO/PI motion).

Defendants filed a non-objection response to the First Motion to Seal (DE 4) and the docket records Anthony Erickson-Pogorzelski as counsel for several defendants. The entry also notes that replies are due on April 16, 2026.

On 04/09/2026, several defendants filed a response in opposition to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (DE 6). The entry states that replies to that opposition are due by 04/16/2026.

A return-of-service affidavit was filed showing the defendants were served in mid-March 2026; several defendants served on March 18, 2026 have responses/answers due May 18, 2026. The affidavit also notes service on other defendants on March 17 and March 19, 2026.

The court issued summons directed to the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General on 2026-03-12. The entry reflects issuance of process and does not state any further court action or deadline.

The plaintiffs filed a notice indicating they submitted proposed summons(es) to the court, with two attached summons documents. The entry is a filing by the plaintiffs and does not itself state any court ruling or set any hearing or deadline.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (seeking certification under 23(a) and 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(2), and (b)(3)), requesting appointment of class representatives and class counsel and attaching a proposed order and affidavit; the filing includes Certificates of Service and Conference. The docket entry sets a deadline for responses to the motion on 2026-03-25.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction asking the court to immediately enjoin defendants from facilitating the plaintiffs' indefinite immigration detention or removal and to set a preliminary injunction after notice and hearing; they state counsel has not conferred because no defense counsel was identified and assert no security bond is required under Rule 65(c). Responses to the motion are due by 2026-03-25.

The docket entry indicates that the court issued summonses directed to the listed defendants: Joseph Edlow; Kristi Noem; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the U.S. Attorney; and the U.S. Attorney General. The entry reflects issuance of process and does not specify any further court ruling or future deadline.

The petitioner filed a first motion to seal a request for injunctive relief under Local Rule 5.4 and attached a proposed order. The docket entry sets a deadline for responses on March 24, 2026.

On 2026-03-09 the plaintiffs filed a petition (complaint) for a writ of mandamus against all defendants, including DHS and USCIS; the filing includes summonses and exhibits, the $405 filing fee, and the case is restricted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. The complaint challenges certain USCIS policy directives and a Presidential Proclamation as unlawfully suspending adjudication of adjustment applications and seeks declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief.

The docket entry indicates the clerk issued a notice assigning the matter to Judge David S. Leibowitz. The entry appears to be an administrative judge-assignment notice and does not by itself reflect any substantive court action.