US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Civil Rights Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 2,925
Craig v. Fidelity Investments
as 2:2024cv00430
Plaintiff:
Anthony Markel Craig, Jr
Defendant:
Fidelity Investments
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Craig v. Title Max of Alabama Inc
as 2:2024cv00431
Plaintiff:
Anthony Markel Craig, Jr
Defendant:
Title Max of Alabama Inc
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Carter v. Bishop
as 5:2024cv00452
Plaintiff:
Christina Carter
Defendant:
Patrick Bishop
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Williams v. Woodbrook Apartments
as 2:2024cv00442
Plaintiff:
Camillia Williams
Defendant:
Woodbrook Apartments
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Shields v. McDonald's Corporation et al
as 2:2024cv00424
Plaintiff:
Anthony Shields
Defendant:
McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's USA, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Alexander v. Dunn et al
as 7:2024cv00419
Plaintiff:
Betty Alexander
Defendant:
Commissioner Jefferson Dunn, Commissioner Ruth Naglich, Warden Christopher Gordy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Craig v. F. et al
as 2:2024cv00432
Plaintiff:
Anthony M Craig, Jr
Defendant:
Melanie F. and Wells Fargo Bank NA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
RoettO'Connor v. Pelham, City of et al
as 2:2024cv00401
Plaintiff:
Gregjoy RoettO'Connor
Defendant:
Pelham, City of, Clifton Powell, William Scott and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Ortiz v. Angel et al
as 2:2024cv00403
Plaintiff:
Reynaldo Ortiz
Defendant:
Edgar A Angel, Andrew T Posten and Alabaster, City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Robertson v. Hydromax USA et al
as 2:2024cv00409
Plaintiff:
Fatuma Robertson
Defendant:
Hydromax USA and Tommy Chandler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
