Cases 51 - 60 of 726
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-30504
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Crosby v. Day
as 23-30501
Petitioner / Appellant:
Michael Crosby
Respondent / Appellee:
Travis Day, Warden, B. B. Rayburn Correctional Center
USA v. Roberts
as 23-50520
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Daviian Dwane Roberts, also known as Daidai Roberts, also known as De-De, also known as Daviian Roberts, also known as David Dwane Roberts, also known as Dai-Dai, also known as Daviian Dwayne Roberts, also known as Davilon Dwane Roberts
Crosby v. Day et al
as 3:2023cv00556
Petitioner:
Michael Crosby
Respondent:
Travis Day and Jeff Landry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Greenup v. LeBlanc et al
as 3:2023cv00531
Plaintiff:
Wilfred Greenup
Defendant:
James M LeBlanc and Travis Day
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv02391
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Koonce v. LuLu's Hair Company, Inc. et al
as 3:2023cv00193
Plaintiff:
Kelcee Koonce
Defendant:
LuLu's Hair Company, Inc. doing business as Lulu's The Salon & Day Spa, Frank Benavidez, Louise Benavidez and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv02290
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
USA v. Day
as 23-10539
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Austin Drake Day
Nelson v. Day et al
as 5:2023cv00644
Plaintiff:
Glen Dale Nelson
Defendant:
Travis Day and Rayburn Correctional Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
