Cases 51 - 60 of 3,438
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02576
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Ramirez, et al v. Board of County Commissioners of Sierra County, et al
as 24-2138
Defendant:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SIERRA COUNTY, OFFICER MALIK ALI, in his individual and official capacities, OFFICER JOEL TREJO, in his individual and official capacities and others
Plaintiff:
ALVIN RAMIREZ and SHANNON RAMIREZ
Jones v. (lnu) et al
as 5:2024cv03158
Plaintiff:
Joseph Lee Jones
Defendant:
(fnu) (lnu) and A.I.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Armbrister
as 5:2024cv03156
Petitioner:
Joseph Lee Jones
Respondent:
(fnu) Padilla
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Kush v. Dickson et al
as 2:2024cv00639
Defendant:
Sydnee Dickson, U.S. Department of Education, AT and T Corp and others
Plaintiff:
Remy Kush
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
Jones v. Cole et al
as 5:2024cv03147
Defendant:
Brian Cole, (fnu) Biltoft, (fnu) (lnu) (2) and others
Plaintiff:
Joseph Lee Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Biers v. Dentons US, et al
as 24-4088
Defendant:
J. R. DOCKSEY, an individual, JUAN AREVALO, an individual, STEVEN J. MCDADE, an individual and others
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL L. BIERS, an individual and Chief Tribal Judge of the Te-Moak Supreme Court
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
Biers v. Dentons US, et al
as 24-4087
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL L. BIERS, an individual and Chief Tribal Judge of the Te-Moak Supreme Court
Defendant:
J. R. DOCKSEY, an individual, DAVIS GONZALEZ, an individual, ANGELEA MENDEZ, an individual and others
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.
