Acosta Reynoso v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

On 2026-09-07 the plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 47), which challenges the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The docket entry reflects the filing of the opposition and does not indicate any court ruling or further action by the court.

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the filing included exhibits labeled “EAD Approvals” and “AOS Approvals.” The docket text was later modified on 2026-08-18 to edit the entry text.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in response to the court's July 30, 2026 order to show cause (with three exhibits), arguing that their claims remain live because none of the 143 plaintiffs’ Form I-485 applications have been adjudicated (while a limited number of Form I-765 work permits have been approved), that venue in the Middle District of Florida is proper for the suit, and that joinder is appropriate and severance is unwarranted. The filing addresses standing, venue, and why the remaining plaintiffs’ claims should not be severed under Rule 21.

On 2026-08-13 the defendants filed a notice (filed by Amanda Saylor) that references the court's Order at docket 44; the entry does not state the notice's content or any court action or ruling.

The judge ordered that, no later than August 17, 2026, the parties must either file a case management report or explain why Local Rule 3.02(d)(2) exempts them from that requirement. The order was signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on August 11, 2026.

The court issued an endorsed order granting the defendants' Motion for Extension of Time and set the defendants' response to the third amended complaint to be filed no later than August 17, 2026. The order was signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on August 7, 2026.

The defendants filed an unopposed motion asking the court for more time to file an answer to the Third Amended Complaint, and they attached a stamped service copy of the (first) amended complaint. The entry reflects only the filing of that motion and does not state any court ruling or new deadline.

A magistrate judge issued an endorsed order denying the renewed motion for pro hac vice admission because the movant practices in Florida but is not a member of the Florida Bar, failed to identify any federal law authorizing her to practice in this federal court, and the court found the immigration-authority citations did not apply to federal-court appearances. The order states that if the movant again seeks admission, the court will hold a show-cause hearing to consider whether to refer her to the Florida Bar.

On 2026-07-17 the defendants filed a formal response in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 25), attaching three exhibits labeled EAD approval, duplicate EAD approvals, and scheduled interview notices; the filing was modified that day to correct duplicate text. The defendants’ brief argues the motion should be denied and states that two of the challenged hold policies have been vacated and are being treated as not in effect.

The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that attorney Yesenia L. Alfonso be admitted pro hac vice and attached a memorandum of law; the motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams.

The defendants filed an unopposed motion requesting permission to file excess pages in their response to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The entry reflects the filing of that motion but does not state any court ruling or set a deadline.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice asserting that this action is related to another case under Local Rule 1.07(c); the docket entry indicates "Related case(s): Yes." The entry lists numerous parties but does not state any court action, ruling, or future dates.

The docket entry indicates that a corporate/disclosure statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 3.03 was filed on July 13, 2026 on behalf of numerous parties in the case. The entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or set any deadlines.

The court issued an endorsed order granting the defendants' motion for leave to file excess pages and permitted the defendants to file a response of no more than twenty-eight pages. The order was signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 2026-07-13.

The court issued an endorsed order granting the unopposed Motion to Amend the Complaint and directed the clerk to docket the referenced Third Amended Complaint. The order was signed by the judge on 2026-07-08.

The docket entry is a brief clerk notation reading "ENTERED IN ERROR." It provides no additional information about what was entered in error or any corrective action.

The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint against all defendants alleging that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudication of their Cuban Adjustment Act-based I-485 and I-765 applications and seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief (including an order requiring USCIS to adjudicate applications within a date certain and attorneys’ fees). The pleading lists 143 plaintiffs and details the factual and legal bases for those claims.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend their Amended Complaint (referring to docket no. 19) and attached an exhibit and a proposed order. The entry reflects the filing of that motion but does not state any court ruling or deadline.

The judge issued a Civil Case Standing Order requiring each nongovernmental party to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement using the judge’s standard template (available on the judge’s website). The order was signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on July 2, 2026.

The judge issued an endorsed order stating that, due to her practice since taking senior status of not accepting emergency temporary-injunctive-relief cases and because the motion for a temporary restraining order was filed on July 1, 2026, the Clerk is directed to randomly reassign the case to another U.S. District Judge in the Tampa Division.

The docket entry indicates the case was reassigned to Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle and given a new case number (8:26-cv-1314-KKM-NHA); Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington is no longer assigned to the case.

On July 1, 2026 the plaintiffs filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. They ask the court to enjoin USCIS policies PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PM-602-0199 as applied to them and to compel defendants to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ pending Form I-485 and Form I-765 applications within 30 days.

The court ordered counsel to meet and confer (in person or by phone) and to file a completed uniform Case Management Report by August 24, 2026, and noted that discovery ordinarily should be completed within six to eight months unless the parties provide a detailed justification for more time. After the report is filed, the court will decide whether a Case Management Hearing is necessary before issuing a scheduling order.

The docket entry reports that multiple plaintiffs returned executed summonses showing service on the named defendants and lists each defendant's service date with the corresponding answer due date. Several affidavits are attached to the return of service.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a status report by July 1, 2026 describing their efforts to perfect service of process on the defendants.

The docket entry indicates that a disclosure statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 3.03 was filed on behalf of the defendants on 2026-06-17; the entry does not state any court action or further detail.

Attorney Amanda Saylor filed a notice of appearance on 2026-06-17 indicating she will represent the listed defendants: Joseph B. Edlow, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the United States Department of Homeland Security.

An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Homeland Security, and two named individuals; the filing lists many plaintiffs and references an earlier amended complaint. The docket entry records the submission of this amended complaint but does not state any court decision or scheduling action.

The docket entry appears to reflect that a party filed a document labeled "Notice (Other)" on 2026-06-11. The entry gives no information about the notice's content, who filed it, or any court action arising from it.

The docket entry dated 2026-06-10 is labeled "Amend / Correct / Modify / Supplement" and appears to reflect a filing intended to amend, correct, modify, or supplement a prior document; the entry does not state who filed it, what was changed, or any court action, so the exact procedural effect is unclear.

The docket entry dated 2026-06-01 is labeled "Appear Pro Hac Vice" and appears to relate to an attorney's pro hac vice appearance; the entry does not state whether this is a filing, a court order, or whether the request was granted.

On 2026-05-26 the court issued a summons directed to the United States (USA).