Bahaduri v. Noem

The docket entry indicates the plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal on 2026-07-22. The entry does not state whether the court has approved the stipulation or the terms (for example, with or without prejudice).

The court entered a stipulated order, signed by the judge, extending the deadline for the parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment from July 10, 2026 to July 24, 2026. The parties represent that USCIS is working to complete adjudication of the underlying application and that a decision could moot further proceedings.

The defendants filed a stipulated motion requesting an extension of the deadline to file cross-motions for summary judgment until July 24, 2026. The entry is a filing requesting relief and does not indicate any court decision on that request.

The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on 06/18/2026, submitted pursuant to the court's earlier Order No. 26.

The court granted the defendants' motion for an extension of time to file an answer and directed the Clerk of Court to accept the proposed answer filed at ECF No. 24-1 for filing.

A joint statement listing undisputed material facts was filed and entered on 2026-06-16.

The defendants filed a motion asking the court for an extension of time to file their answer to the complaint. The filing includes a proposed answer and a proposed order; the docket entry does not indicate whether the court has ruled on the request.

The defendants filed a supplemental portion (Part 3) of the certified administrative record from USCIS, comprising pages 133–213, and attached it to the docket. The filing entry was later modified on 2026-06-08.

The docket entry indicates that on 2026-06-04 the defendants filed a response to the court's Order to Show Cause explaining why they did not file an answer after the court's ruling on their motion to dismiss. The entry appears to be a filing responding to the court's directive, not a court decision or order.

The defendants filed an administrative record from USCIS for the petitioner, submitted as two attached exhibit parts covering pages 1–68 and 69–132; the filing was entered on 2026-06-03.

The court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the defendants to either file a responsive pleading or explain in writing why default should not be entered, with a deadline of June 17, 2026. The order states that if the defendants seek more time they must file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) demonstrating excusable neglect and attach the proposed responsive pleading per W.D. Mich. LCivR 5.7(f); the order is signed by Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou.

The court signed a stipulation and order extending case deadlines: the certified administrative record is due by 6/5/2026, a joint stipulation of undisputed facts is listed as due 6/19/2025, and cross-motions for summary judgment are due by 7/10/2026; the order states no further extensions. The order is signed by Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou.

On 2026-05-29 the defendants filed a joint motion asking the court to extend the deadline to file the certified administrative record and to extend the time to file their cross-motions for summary judgment. The filing is a request and does not indicate any court decision on that request.

On 2026-03-18 the defendants filed a reply to the petitioner's response to the defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8).

Magistrate Judge Ray Kent signed an order concerning the Rule 16 scheduling conference on March 16, 2026. The docket entry does not state the order's contents or any specific deadlines or directives.

The docket reflects that a telephonic scheduling conference was held before Magistrate Judge Ray Kent on March 16, 2026; the proceedings were not digitally recorded and the entry states an order will be issued.

A joint status report was filed and entered on March 7, 2026 indicating the parties submitted a joint update to the court.

The petitioner filed a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss (docket no. 8) on 2026-03-04.

The court issued an order rescheduling the Rule 16 telephonic scheduling conference to March 16, 2026 at 10:00 AM and set a status report due date of March 9, 2026.

The magistrate judge issued an order scheduling a telephonic Rule 16 scheduling conference for March 18, 2026 at 10:00 AM and ordered a status report to be filed by March 12, 2026.

The defendants Darice Alvertos, Joseph B. Edlow, and Kristi Noem filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

The court signed a stipulation and order extending the defendants' deadline to file an answer to the complaint until February 4, 2026.

The defendants filed a proposed stipulation and order requesting an extension of time until February 4, 2026 for them to file their response.

The docket entry indicates the summons was returned executed as to all defendants, including the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General, and notes that service was made on all defendants (entry references 'Abrutyn, Russell'). The entry was entered on 2025-11-06.

The docket entry notes that the case was assigned to Hala Y. Jarbou; the entry was entered on 2025-10-27.

A summons was issued and entered on 2025-10-27 for the listed defendants: Darice Alvertos, Joseph B. Edlow, Kristi Noem, the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney General.

The docket entry indicates a proposed summons was submitted to the court and is labeled "to be issued." The exact procedural effect and whether the summons has actually been issued is unclear from the entry text.

The docket entry indicates a complaint was filed or docketed on 2025-10-25.