Cases 61 - 70 of 124,942
Nguyen v. Tran
as 2:2024cv02528
Defendant:
Tien Tran
Plaintiff:
Quoc H. Nguyen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
OCAMPO v. AVILA et al
as 1:2024at00739
Defendant:
KARANPREET SANGHA, FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT and GILBERTO AVILA
Plaintiff:
ESTEBAN OCAMPO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
(PS) Garcia v. Robinson et al
as 2:2024cv02532
Defendant:
Bobby Chapman and George Robinson
Plaintiff:
Stephen Garcia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02531
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination
(HC) Ranteesi v. Unknown
as 2:2024cv02522
Petitioner:
Simon F. Ranteesi
Respondent:
Unknown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Trammell Robinson III v. Ridgecrest Superior Court
as 1:2024cv01106
Plaintiff:
Trammell Glenn Robinson, III
Defendant:
Ridgecrest Superior Court
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Benanti v. Doerer
as 1:2024cv01108
Plaintiff:
Matthew Higgins-Vogt, Aaron M. Carrion and Michael Benanti
Defendant:
J. Doerer
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Morris v. American Neighborhood Mortgage Acceptance Co., et al
as 2:2024cv02530
Plaintiff:
Tameka Morris
Defendant:
American Neighborhood Mortgage Acceptance Company Doing business as AnnieMac Home Mortgage and Kristine Paulino
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination
Walker Products Inc. v. Cong et al
as 2:2024mc00373
Defendant:
Yue (Frank) Cong and All Automotive Megahub, Inc.
Cross-Defendant:
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Walker Products Inc.
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
(HC) Manns v. Doerer
as 1:2024cv01107
Respondent:
Doerer
Petitioner:
Tony Manns
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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.
