Cases 61 - 70 of 27,620
Timothy Payne v. U.S. Army Material Command (AMC)
as 24-1521
Plaintiff:
SSGT. TIMOTHY ADAM PAYNE
Defendant:
U.S. ARMY MATERIAL COMMAND (AMC), f/k/a Installation Management Command (IMCOM), ANGELICA J. JENNETTE, AMC/IMCOM (RSO), JOYCE BALDWIN, AMC/IMCOM (retired services) and others
Tapia v. Msp. Trooper D et al
as 1:2024cv01639
Defendant:
G.T.L., Msp. Trooper D, Sgt. Hunt and others
Plaintiff:
Jose M. Tapia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Barnes v. Mills et al
as 1:2024cv01638
Plaintiff:
Robert Earl Barnes, Jr.
Defendant:
Officer J. Mills, Officer B. Schorck, Officer Rounds and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
GATEWOOD v. O'MALLEY
as 1:2024cv00466
Plaintiff:
ERIC GATEWOOD
Defendant:
MARTIN J. O'MALLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00964
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Dixon v. Wallens Ridge State Prison et al
as 7:2024cv00364
Plaintiff:
Hunter Dixon
Defendant:
Wallens Ridge State Prison, J. Artrip, Major Hall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00056
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Asbury v. USA
as 3:2024cv00527
Petitioner:
Terickus J. Asbury
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Asbury v. USA
as 3:2024cv00528
Petitioner:
Terickus J. Asbury
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Smith v. Targonsk et al
as 2:2024cv00363
Plaintiff:
Timothy R. Smith
Defendant:
Targonsk, S. Herrick, G. Swartz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
