Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Sarpong v. Howard County Detention Center et al
as 1:2024cv05853
Plaintiff:
Mpiani Kwaku Sarpong
Defendant:
Maryland Department of Transportation, Cube Smart Self Storage, Howard County Detention Center and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Self v. Pullen
as 3:2023cv00181
Petitioner:
Darrell Self
Respondent:
T. Pullen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Grant-Cobham v. Martinez et al
as 1:2020cv01947
Defendant:
Pharmacy/Nurses, Police Officer McCarthy, Nurses and others
Plaintiff:
Job Martin Grant-Cobham
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Self v. LaValley et al
as 9:2010cv01463
Plaintiff:
Donald Self
Defendant:
Thomas LaValley, Karen Lapolt, Stephen Rowe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Martinez v. Self discrimination of Self prejudism of being unable to request for loan or a grant from a bank or the state to have a shoe maker and a tailor to fit me and perhaps if I had a business for my fellow workers
as 1:2007cv01160
Plaintiff:
Jorge Alberto Martinez
Defendant:
Self discrimination of Self prejudism of being unable to request for loan or a grant from a bank or the state to have a shoe maker and a tailor to fit me and perhaps if I had a business for my fellow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Enforcement of Administrative Subpoena
Martinez v. Discrimination
as 1:2007cv01158
Plaintiff:
Jorge Alberto Martinez
Defendant:
Discrimination and discrimination from Texas causing further discrimination in New York
Consolidated Defendant:
perhaps discrimination from murmuring tongues in New York and Self discrimination of Self prejudism of being unable to request for loan or a grant from a bank or the state to have a shoe maker and a tailor to fit me and perhaps if I had a business for my fellow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Enforcement of Administrative Subpoena
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.
