Bahaduri v. Noem

The docket entry appears to indicate the court entered an order addressing a motion for an extension of time to file an answer. The entry does not state the order's terms or whether the extension was granted or what new deadline (if any) was set.

A docket entry titled "Extension of Time to File Answer" was entered on 2026-06-16; it appears to reflect a filing concerning additional time to file a responsive answer. The entry does not state who filed it, whether the court granted the extension, or what new deadline (if any) was set.

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 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 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.

A filing titled "Stipulation and Order" was submitted on 2026-06-01. The entry does not specify the stipulation's terms or whether the court signed or entered an order, so the document's procedural effect is unclear.

The docket entry is titled "Extension of Time" and appears to be a filing requesting more time; the entry does not indicate who filed it, what deadline is at issue, or whether any extension was granted. The exact procedural effect is unclear from the entry text.

The docket entry reflects that an opinion was filed and signed by Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou on 2026-03-31. The entry does not state the opinion's substance or describe any procedural outcome or next steps.

The docket reflects that a court order was entered on 2026-03-16; the entry provides no information about the order's content or its procedural effect.

The docket entry appears to be an order rescheduling the Rule 16 scheduling conference, entered on 2026-02-27. The entry does not state the new date, time, or other details of the rescheduled conference.

The docket entry labeled "Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction" appears to indicate a dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction. The entry is brief and does not make clear who filed it, whether the court entered an order, or whether the case is concluded.

The docket entry indicates a document titled "Stipulation and Order" was filed or docketed on 2025-12-26. The entry does not state the stipulation's contents or whether the court has approved or entered any order, so the exact procedural effect is unclear.

On 2025-12-24 a single document titled "Stipulation and Order (Proposed-one document)" was filed or submitted to the court. The entry does not state the stipulation's contents or whether the court has approved or entered the proposed order.

A docket entry labeled "Notice Regarding Assignment of Case" was filed or entered on 2025-10-27. The entry title alone does not state any substantive action, details, or future deadlines.

The docket entry indicates a summons was issued directing service on the United States. The entry does not state whether service was completed or any response deadline was set.

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

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.