US District Court for the District of Columbia Civil Rights Cases
Cases 121 - 130 of 5,004
VANDERPLOEG v. BLINKEN
as 1:2024cv00669
Plaintiff:
BELGIN J. VANDERPLOEG
Defendant:
ANTONY BLINKEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
SMITH THEE v. U.S. SECRET SERVICE
as 1:2024cv00668
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO D. SMITH THEE
Defendant:
SECRET SERVICE and U.S. SECRET SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
EDWARDS v. CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION et al
as 1:2024cv00666
Plaintiff:
STEPHEN S. EDWARDS
Defendant:
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, EMMET G. SULLIVAN, PHH MORTGAGE ET AL and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
ROLLINS v. OTTMAN
as 1:2024cv00605
Plaintiff:
LAKEISHA ROLLINS
Defendant:
JULIE OTTMAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ISOM v. NELSON
as 1:2024cv00648
Plaintiff:
TYESHA ISOM
Defendant:
JANE NELSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
SOOS v. MCDONOUGH et al
as 1:2024cv00196
Plaintiff:
EMERY SOOS
Defendant:
DENIS R. MCDONOUGH and WALT C. DANNENBERG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
HURT v. VOL. CONSTITUTION 1608- 1775 et al
as 1:2024cv00651
Plaintiff:
TYRONE HURT
Defendant:
VOL. CONSTITUTION 1608- 1775, AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY and FORMER LORTON COMPLEX
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
HURT v. VOL. CONSTITUTION 1608-1775 et al
as 1:2024cv00649
Plaintiff:
TYRONE HURT
Defendant:
VOL. CONSTITUTION 1608-1775, NATIONAL MUSUEM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
ROLLINS v. MONTGOMERY
as 1:2024cv00606
Plaintiff:
LAKEISHA BOLLINS and LAKEISHA ROLLINS
Defendant:
STEPHEN MONTGOMERY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
FREDERICK v. PEPCO
as 1:2024cv00579
Plaintiff:
TYANNA FREDERICK
Defendant:
PEPCO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
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.
