Cases 1 - 10 of 101
Leroy Wells v. John Roberts, et al
as 24-5021
Plaintiff:
Leroy Lamont Wells
Defendant:
John Roberts, Chief Justice United States Supreme Court, D.S.G., U.S.D.C.D. Or. Pendleton Division; Clerk, John Does, U.S.D.C.D. Or. Pendleton Division; Clerks and others
BASHIR v. ORIAHKI
as 1:2024cv00140
Plaintiff:
RIZWAN BASHIR
Defendant:
LEROY ORIAHKI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
TATUM v. BIDEN et al
as 1:2024cv00033
Plaintiff:
THOMAS TATUM
Defendant:
JOSEPH BIDEN, METROPOLITAN POLICE, DANIEL THAU and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
WELLS v. ROBERTS et al
as 1:2023cv02533
Plaintiff:
LEROY LAMONT WELLS
Defendant:
JOHN ROBERTS, DSG, JOHN DOES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
HOLMES et al v. MAYORKAS et al
as 1:2023cv00485
Plaintiff:
RENEA HOLMES and LEROY THADDEUS TAVARES
Defendant:
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UR M. JADDOU, MERRICK B. GARLAND and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
ALFORD v. MCDOUNGH
as 1:2022cv02856
Plaintiff:
LEROY ALFORD
Defendant:
DENIS MCDOUNGH
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
SCHMITZ et al v. ERICSSON INC. et al
as 1:2022cv02317
Plaintiff:
MARK SCHMITZ, SUZANNE SCHMITZ, DIANE FOLEY and others
Defendant:
ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 2331 Anti-terrorism Act
DAVIS et al v. MTN GROUP LIMITED et al
as 1:2022cv00829
Plaintiff:
GUY L DAVIS, TERESITA R DAVIS, AYLA M DAVIS and others
Defendant:
MTN GROUP LIMITED, MTN IRANCELL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES COMPANY, PHUTHUMA NHLEKO and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 2331 Anti-terrorism Act
BECHARD v. UNITED STATES et al
as 1:2022mc00004
Plaintiff:
RYAN THOMAS BECHARD
Defendant:
UNITED STATES, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORP., KATHLEEN LYNN GEHRKE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
