Cases 1 - 8 of 8
DOE et al v. AUSTIN et al
as 3:2021cv01211
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE, I, JOHN 2 DOE, JOHN DOE #3 and others
Defendant:
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, III, Secretary U.S. DHS Xavier Becerra, Secretary Air Force Frank Kendall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kennedy Uzomba v. USA, et al
as 20-14258
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KENNEDY UZOMBA
Defendant / Appellee:
F. CECIL ADAMS, JR., General, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, U.S. Department and others
Christopher Parker v. Mark Esper
as 20-13376
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER G. PARKER
Defendant / Appellee:
MARK ESPER, Secretary of Defense
Ruth Reeves v. Secretary of Defense, et al
as 20-11406
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RUTH ELLEN REEVES
Defendant / Appellee:
MONGELL, CEO FWB Medical Center and SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Kennedy Uzomba v. USA, et al
as 20-11366
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KENNEDY UZOMBA
Defendant / Appellee:
F. CECIL ADAMS, JR., GENERAL, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROSEMARY UZOMBA and others
Chatman v. Secretary of Defense et al
as 1:2019cv00459
Defendant:
Secretary of Defense and Kenneth Holdcraft
Plaintiff:
Michael Chatman
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0552
Williamson v. USA President Trump et al
as 7:2017cv01490
Plaintiff:
Cassandra Leigh Williamson
Defendant:
USA President Trump, Secretary of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Agility Defense & Gov't Svcs, et al v. US Department of Defense, et al
as 13-10757
Plaintiff - Appellee:
AGILITY DGS LOGISTICS SERVICES COMPANY, K.S.C.(C), a Delaware corporation with its principal of business located in Madison, Alabama, f.k.a. Taos Industries, Inc. and AGILITY INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Alexandria, Virginia
Defendant - Appellant:
US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 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.
