Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv03064
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
WOODWARD et al v. DOE et al
as 1:2023cv01616
Plaintiff:
SHAWN A. WOODWARD and RONALD D. JOHNSON
Defendant:
MIKE DOE, JOHN DOE, LAMAR FARMER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00671
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
DUBOSE v. ALBRIGHT et al
as 1:2021cv20123
Plaintiff:
LAMAR DUBOSE
Defendant:
NANCY ALBRIGHT and JOHN ALBRIGHT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv18653
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
DIGGS v. CITY OF WOODBURY et al
as 1:2017cv11994
Plaintiff:
LAMAR DIGGS
Defendant:
CITY OF WOODBURY, THOMAS R RYAN, MATTHEW PORTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MAYS v. The Albert M. "Bo" Robinson Assessment & Treatment Center et al
as 3:2017cv04352
Defendant:
THE ALBERT "BO" ROBINSON ASSESSMENT & TREATMENT CENTER , THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER , LAMAR NORMAN and others
Plaintiff:
RYAN MAYS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
ALEXANDER v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD et al
as 2:2016cv04599
Plaintiff:
LAMAR ALEXANDER
Defendant:
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD and CITY OF ENGLEWOOD POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE/JANE DOE 1-10
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HUCKABY v. BRADLEY et al.
as 1:2016cv04327
Plaintiff:
LANNY SCOTT HUCKABY
Defendant:
PAUL E. BRADLEY, DEXTER ISAIAH CHRONIS, ANTONIO CORTEZ DAVIS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
ANGLIN v. ANGLIN
as 2:2016cv04049
Defendant:
ROBERT MATTHEW ANGLIN, EMILY MELLOW, EDWIN LEAVITT-GRUBERGER and others
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH LAMAR ANGLIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
