Cases 61 - 70 of 551
ALEXANDER v. THORNLEY et al
as 3:2022cv00224
Plaintiff:
KEITH ALEXANDER
Defendant:
CASEY THORNLEY, PATRICK NAGLE, DEANNA DELLATORRE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Spinner v. Sage
as 1:2022cv01882
Petitioner:
Muhammad Spinner
Respondent:
Warden Sage
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv04363
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
MUHAMMAD v. STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY
as 2:2022cv06149
Plaintiff:
HALIMAH MUHAMMAD
Defendant:
STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv06063
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Dudley v. Spaulding
as 3:2022cv01560
Petitioner:
Muhammad Dudley
Respondent:
Stephen Spaulding
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Muhammad v. Farrahkan
as 1:2022cv01518
Plaintiff:
Walid A. Muhammad
Defendant:
Minister Louis Farrahkan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Anthony Twitty v. Margett Barns, et al
as 22-2801
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ANTHONY TWITTY
Defendant / Appellee:
MARGETT BARNS, C.R.N.P., CASEY N. THORNLEY, C.R.N.P., DR. MUHAMMAD NAJI and others
DAVISE v. CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
as 2:2022cv03760
Plaintiff:
MARQUISE DAVISE and MARQUISS DAVIS
Defendant:
CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, OFFICER N. MUHAMMAD, OFFICER T. FELTS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Muhammad Imran-Shahid v. Attorney General United States of America
as 22-2626
Petitioner:
MUHAMMAD IMRAN-SHAHID
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
