1:26-cv-10915 Mir v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al
Extension of Time to File Answer ( 5
Michael D Reeves filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and others. The court granted Reeves' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing him to proceed with the case without paying the required filing fee.
Latest development
Filing · April 24, 2026
The Department of Homeland Security and other defendants have been served with a new lawsuit, Michael D Reeves v. Department of Homeland Security DHS et al, which combines a filing fee and partial filing fee. This filing is a significant development in the case, as it marks the official start of the lawsuit. The case is now part of the 1:26-cv-21717 docket.
description View filingThe U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted an extension of time for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other defendants to file an answer in the case of Mir v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al (1:26-cv-10915). The extension allows the defendants an additional 5 days to respond to the complaint. This extension is significant because it gives the defendants more time to prepare their response.
The court granted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the case of Teruel v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with the case without paying the required filing fee. This decision is significant because it enables the plaintiff to continue pursuing their claim despite financial constraints. The case is related to Michael D Reeves v. Department of Homeland Security DHS et al, but the two cases are distinct.
The Department of Homeland Security and other defendants have been served with a new lawsuit, Michael D Reeves v. Department of Homeland Security DHS et al, which combines a filing fee and partial filing fee. This filing is a significant development in the case, as it marks the official start of the lawsuit. The case is now part of the 1:26-cv-21717 docket.
The court granted a motion to add Michael D Reeves as a plaintiff in the case Armijos Hoyos et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al. This decision allows Reeves to join the existing lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. The addition of Reeves as a plaintiff may impact the scope and outcome of the case.
Judge Cajape Farias has been assigned to the case 1:26-cv-22863 Cajape Farias v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al. This case is a separate matter from Michael D Reeves v. Department of Homeland Security DHS et al. The assignment of a judge to a case is a procedural step that can impact the timeline and outcome of the litigation.
The Los Angeles Times Communications LLC filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other defendants in the case 2:20-cv-10911. The lawsuit is unrelated to the case Michael D Reeves v. Department of Homeland Security DHS et al. This filing is a separate legal action.
The court granted the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing them to proceed with their lawsuit without paying the required filing fee. This decision is significant because it enables the plaintiff to continue their case despite financial constraints. The plaintiff, Michael D Reeves, is suing the Department of Homeland Security and others.
A Notice of Resources for ProSe Litigants was filed.
The parties filed a joint status report.
The Department of Homeland Security and other defendants in the case Michael D Reeves v. Department of Homeland Security DHS et al have been served with a new lawsuit, Polo Noel v. Department of Homeland Security et al, case number 1:26-cv-22345. The filing fee for this new case was paid by combining the full filing fee with a partial filing fee. This new lawsuit will likely be consolidated with the existing case.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a mandate in the case of Michael D. Reeves v. Department of Homeland Security, effectively ending the appeal process. This mandate was issued after the court's previous decision was not appealed to the US Supreme Court. The case is now closed.
Extension of Time to File Answer ( 5
Proceed In Forma Pauperis ( 3
Clerk's Receipt (combines Filing Fee and Partial Filing Fee) ( 9
Judge Assignment
Proceed In Forma Pauperis ( 3
Notice of Resources for ProSe Litigants (CV-134) - optional html form ( 5
Status Report ( 19
Clerk's Receipt (combines Filing Fee and Partial Filing Fee) ( 6
USCA Mandate ( 12
Sources tracked
5 outlets · 11 articles
Timeline events
11 records on file
Last updated
1 week, 3 days 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.