Cases 31 - 40 of 65
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00455
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Barclay v. Choate et al
as 1:2022cv01472
Petitioner:
Maurice Barclay
Respondent:
J. Choate, John Fabbricator, Mathew T. Albene and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd - Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00436
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00431
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00404
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Kanev v. United States, et al
as 22-1166
Petitioner / Appellant:
TSVETAN KANEV and TSVETAN KANEV KANEV
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OFFICER OLEJNIZACK, Officer in charge, Aurora Processing Center, OFFICER SMITH, ICE Denver Field Office, Centennial and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv01056
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1255 Immigration and Nationality Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv01009
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 - Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00308
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00293
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
