Perez v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

A docket entry titled "Leave to File Document" was entered on 2026-07-14. The entry provides no information about who sought leave, what document is at issue, or whether the court granted permission, so the exact procedural effect is unclear.

A filing labeled "Notice (Other)" was entered on July 14, 2026; the docket entry provides no information about the notice's content, who filed it, or any procedural effect.

On 2026-07-10 the defendants (DHS/USCIS) filed a notice of supplemental authority concerning the court's Order at docket entry 53. The filing is labeled as a notice of supplemental authority and was entered by the court on that date.

The court issued an order directing USCIS to file supplemental briefing addressing the questions listed in the order. The briefing is due no later than July 10, 2026; the order was signed on July 3, 2026.

The petitioner filed a notice referencing the court's Order No. 45 that informs the court of a scheduling conflict, provides a case status update, and indicates a potential intent to amend the complaint.

The docket entry indicates that the petitioner filed a reply to the defendants' response concerning the Third Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 41) and the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 46), attaching five exhibits.

The petitioner filed a joint notice stating the parties' position on whether an evidentiary hearing or oral argument is requested concerning Doc. 41, submitted in response to the court's Order at Doc. 43. The filing was entered on 2026-06-10 and the text was modified on 2026-06-11.

The magistrate judge issued an order on 2026-06-10 granting in part and denying in part the motion to seal (Doc. 47) and directed the Clerk to seal document [46-1].

The court construed the defendants' filing (Doc. 46) as a combined response to the petitioner's Third Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and as a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, and it set a deadline for the petitioner to respond. The endorsed order was signed on June 7, 2026, and gives the petitioner until June 25, 2026 to file a response to Doc. 46.

The petitioner filed a motion asking the court to seal Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to docket entry 46; the filing was entered on 2026-06-04 and corrected on 2026-06-05. The docket entry does not indicate whether the court has ruled on the sealing request.

On 2026-06-04 the defendants (Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and related USCIS officials) filed a response in opposition to the petitioner’s Third Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 41), attaching two exhibits. The entry reflects the filing of an opposition; it does not state any court ruling or set any hearing or deadline.

The court issued an endorsed order denying the petitioner's motion for a status conference, finding the petitioner identified no need for one based on the amended complaint or the pending motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ordered defendants to respond to the motion for a preliminary injunction by June 3, 2026, and stated that any further amendment to the complaint must be sought by motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

On 2026-05-22 the petitioner filed a motion requesting that the court hold a case management conference. The docket entry shows only the filing of the motion and does not indicate any ruling or any date set by the court.

On 2026-05-20 the petitioner filed a notice titled "Notice of Subsequent Administrative Action." The entry provides no details about what the subsequent administrative action was or any procedural effect on the case.

The court issued an endorsed order setting deadlines: defendants must file a response to the Third Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by June 3, 2026, and the parties must file a joint notice by June 10, 2026 stating whether they request an evidentiary hearing or oral argument. The order also directs strict compliance with Middle District of Florida Local Rule 6.02.

The petitioner filed a third motion for a preliminary injunction on 2026-05-17, attaching three exhibits. The entry reflects only the filing of that motion and does not state any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The petitioner filed an amended complaint on 2026-05-15 in response to the court's Order 39, naming all defendants and attaching fifteen exhibits. The filing is labeled as an amended complaint and includes exhibits and an appendix.

The petitioner filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on 2026-05-11, attaching a sworn declaration as an exhibit. The entry reflects only the filing of the motion and its attachment; no court ruling is indicated.

The court issued an endorsed order stating that, in light of the amended complaint (Doc. 36), the plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 35) is denied as moot. The order was signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 2026-05-11.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in response to the court's Order (Doc. 34) against all defendants and attached thirteen exhibits.

The plaintiff filed a time-sensitive, unopposed motion on 2026-05-07 asking for an extension of time to amend the complaint. The docket text does not state whether the court granted or set any new deadline.

The petitioner filed a notice of supplemental authority relating to the motion for a preliminary injunction (docket no. 10) and the petitioner’s reply (docket no. 30) to the response to motion no. 29, attaching two exhibits of supplemental authority. The filing was entered on 2026-04-09.

On 2026-03-26 the petitioner filed a reply to the response to his Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (docket no. 29) and a reply in support of his Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 10), attaching one exhibit and noting it was filed per the court's order (docket no. 27).

The petitioner filed a notice regarding the court's endorsed order at docket no. 31 and the prior order at docket no. 27, and the filing appears to concern the parties' joint motion to waive an evidentiary hearing. The exact procedural effect of the notice is not stated in this entry.

The court issued an endorsed order construing docket entry 29 (a Motion to Dismiss) as a Response in Opposition to the amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction at docket entry 10, and directed the parties to comply with the remaining deadlines set in the court’s prior Order at docket entry 27. The order was signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 2026-03-26.

The docket entry on 2026-03-24 is a single-line entry reading "Dismiss." The exact procedural effect is unclear from this entry alone — it appears to indicate a dismissal but does not state who filed it, whether the court entered an order, or whether the case is terminated.

The parties filed a joint motion asking the court to hold the plaintiff's amended motion for preliminary injunction in abeyance until March 20, 2026, and proposing a limited briefing schedule and procedures depending on whether the agency adjudicates a pending Form I-290B; the motion is described as remaining pending and the parties consent to service via email.

On 2026-03-04 a "Memorandum in support" was filed in the case. The docket entry gives no information about who filed it or what motion or pleading the memorandum supports.

A Proof of Service filing was entered in the case on 2026-03-04. The entry does not say who filed it or what documents or parties were served, so the exact scope and effect are unclear.

The docket entry indicates a Notice of a Related Action was filed on 2026-02-27. The entry provides no details about which action is related or any procedural effect from the notice.

A proof of service entry was filed in the case on 2026-02-27. The entry does not state what documents were served, who filed it, or who was served, so the exact scope and procedural effect is unclear.

The docket shows a disclosure statement referencing Local Rule 3.03 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 was filed on 2026-02-27. The entry does not identify who filed it or provide further details about its contents.

A Certificate of Service was filed on 2026-02-27. The entry does not state who filed it, what documents were served, or who was served, so its exact scope and procedural effect are unclear.

The docket shows an entry titled "Leave to File Document" was entered on 2026-02-24. The entry provides no information about who filed it, what document is at issue, or whether the court granted permission, so its procedural effect is unclear.

On 2026-02-24 the docket shows a filing labeled "Compliance notice." The entry gives no details about its contents, who filed it, or any procedural effect, so the exact substance and impact are unclear.

On 2026-02-24 the court docket shows a filing labeled "Notice (Other)." The entry provides no details about who filed it, what the notice concerns, or any procedural effect, so the exact substance and impact are unclear.

The docket entry indicates an order was entered on 2026-02-20. The entry contains no information about the order’s contents, who issued it, or its procedural effect, so the exact impact is unclear.

A proof of service filing was entered on 2026-02-20. The entry does not say what was served, who filed it, or who was served, so the exact scope and effect are unclear from this entry alone.

The docket contains an entry labeled "Preliminary Injunction" entered on 2026-02-19. The entry provides no further detail, so it is unclear from the text whether this is a motion, a court order, who filed it, or whether any relief was granted.

The docket reflects a filing labeled "Notice (Other)" entered on 2026-02-19; the entry provides no details about the notice's subject, who filed it, or its procedural effect, so the exact content and impact are unclear.

A certificate of service was filed in the case on 2026-02-19. The entry does not state what documents were served or who was served.

The docket entry indicates an amended complaint was filed on 2026-02-19. The entry does not state who filed it, describe what changes were made, or indicate any court action accepting or ruling on the amendment.

The docket entry indicates a Proof of Service was filed on 2026-02-12. The entry does not state who filed it or what documents or parties were served.

The entry indicates the petitioner filed a motion for miscellaneous relief asking for permission to appear remotely and for leave to file documents electronically.

The petitioner filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on 2026-02-11, attaching three exhibits and subsequently adding an exhibit list; the entry notes the main document and an attachment were replaced on the same date.

On 2026-02-11 the plaintiff filed a complaint naming the Department of Homeland Security, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Director of the USCIS California Service Center, and the DHS Secretary as defendants. The filing included a $405.00 filing fee (receipt TPA 73762) and attachments: a civil cover sheet, an exhibit list, and five exhibits.

The court clerk issued a summons directed to the named federal defendants (Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, the USCIS California Service Center director, and the DHS Secretary) and to the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General.