2:21-cv-00395 Immigrant Defenders Law Center et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al
Extension of Time to File Document ( 338
Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al is a civil case with a current docket of 25-cv-25833. The case was assigned to a judge, but the court is unknown. The case involves a dispute between the plaintiff and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other defendants.
Stage
Active litigation
Timeline
13 events
Coverage
13 articles
Sources
2
Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al is a civil case with a current docket of 25-cv-25833.
The case was assigned to a judge, but the court is unknown. The case involves a dispute between the plaintiff and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other defendants.
On April 21, 2026, a Notice of Judge Assignment and Optional Consent was filed, indicating that the case is moving forward. The court has yet to assign a judge to the case, and the parties are likely waiting for a ruling on the consent to proceed.
The case is currently active, and the next development will be the assignment of a judge and the scheduling of a hearing or trial. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been served with multiple new lawsuits in recent days, including Rojas Ruiz, Jersson v. Department of Homeland Security et al and Aguilar Batista v. Department of Homeland Security et al, which may indicate a trend of increased litigation against the agency. The court's handling of these cases will be closely watched, and the outcome may have implications for the Gonzalez case and other similar disputes.
The court's decision to dismiss the case, Hamchou Abou Harb v. Department of Homeland Security et al, due to lack of jurisdiction may also be relevant to the Gonzalez case, as it highlights the importance of jurisdiction in federal court proceedings. Department of Homeland Security's handling of habeas corpus petitions, including a recent filing in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, may also be relevant to the Gonzalez case, as it raises questions about the agency's detention practices and the rights of individuals in its custody.
The court's response to these developments will be closely watched, and the outcome may have significant implications for the Gonzalez case and other similar disputes.
Order Dismissing/Closing Case or Party ( 10
Open original open_in_newClerk's Receipt (combines Filing Fee and Partial Filing Fee) ( 7
Open original open_in_newClerk's Receipt (combines Filing Fee and Partial Filing Fee) ( 7
Open original open_in_newJuryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.
The court granted an extension of time for Immigrant Defenders Law Center and others to file a document in the case Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al. This extension allows the parties more time to prepare and submit their document. The extension is significant because it gives the parties additional time to address any issues or concerns.
The court has consolidated Martin De Matos v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al with Gonzalez v. Department of Homeland Security et al. This consolidation will allow the two cases to be heard together, potentially streamlining the litigation process. The consolidation is significant because it may impact the outcome of both cases.
The court issued an order.
Judge assigned to Saintilien v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al, a case related to Gonzalez v. Department of Homeland Security et al. This assignment is a procedural step in the case's progression. The judge's role will be to oversee the case's development.
A new case, Martin v. Department of Homeland Security, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, with docket number 5:25-cv-02459. This case is separate from Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al. The exact nature of the case is not specified.
A Notice of Judge Assignment and Optional Consent was filed.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other defendants have been served with a new lawsuit, Rojas Ruiz, Jersson v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al, which combines a filing fee and partial filing fee. This filing is a formal step in the lawsuit process, indicating that the plaintiff is moving forward with their case. The case number is 1:26-cv-21344.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security was served with a new lawsuit, Aguilar Batista v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al, case number 1:26-cv-22209. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The filing fee was paid in full.
The court dismissed the case, Hamchou Abou Harb v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al, due to lack of jurisdiction. This means the court does not have the authority to hear the case. The case was originally filed as 1:25-cv-21500 in the Southern District of Florida.
A new habeas corpus petition was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, challenging the detention of an individual by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The petition, filed on behalf of the detainee, seeks to have the court review the legality of their detention. This development may impact the ongoing detention and potential release of the individual.
A Notice of Compliance was filed.
A response was filed.
A response was filed.
Extension of Time to File Document ( 338
Order Dismissing/Closing Case or Party ( 10
Judge Assignment
Clerk's Notice of Judge Assignment and Optional Consent
Clerk's Receipt (combines Filing Fee and Partial Filing Fee) ( 7
Clerk's Receipt (combines Filing Fee and Partial Filing Fee) ( 7
Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction ( 24
Application/Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( 7
Notice of Compliance
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer ( 16
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer ( 15
Sources tracked
2 outlets · 13 articles
Timeline events
13 records on file
Last updated
1 day, 3 hours ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.