Cases 1 - 10 of 588
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02576
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Jones v. City of Sapulpa et al
as 4:2024cv00392
Defendant:
Sapulpa Police Department, John Doe, Jane Doe and others
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey D Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Moore City of et al
as 5:2024cv00855
Defendant:
Jason M Landrum, Brendon C Hughes, Moore City of and others
Plaintiff:
Allahgehovah Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Woodrow, et al
as 24-1313
Defendant:
TRACEY WOODROW, individually, and in her official capacity as Evidence Technician for Archuleta County Sheriff's Office, COUNTY OF ARCHULETA, UNKNOWN DOES 1-6, individually and in their official capacities as employees for Archuleta County Sheriff's Office/Detention Facility and others
Plaintiff:
JIMMY JONES
Richter v. Hatfield, et al
as 24-5084
Defendant:
ROBIN HATFIELD, JESSICA PITTS, AARIKA HOLT and others
Plaintiff:
NATHAN D. RICHTER, Administrator of the Estate of Xander Cage Harris-Bruntmyer
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00694
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00671
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Jones v. Archuleta
as 1:2024cv01685
Plaintiff:
Matthew Jones
Defendant:
Joseph Archuleta
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00603
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Springer v. Seventh Judicial District Court, et al
as 24-2087
Defendant:
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SUSAN ROSSIGNOL, MERCEDES MURPHY and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES SPRINGER
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.
