Cases 81 - 90 of 101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2007cv00031
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Kumar v. Chertoff et al
as 5:2007cv00200
Petitioner:
Lakhwinder Kumar
Respondent:
Michael Chertoff, George (Butch) Head and Alberto R. Gonzales
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Athens Pawn Shop Inc v. Brooks
as 6:2007cv00114
Plaintiff:
Athens Pawn Shop Inc
Defendant:
John H Brooks and Alberto R Gonzales
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Doe v. Gonzales et al
as 1:2007cv00157
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe, Jane Doe and Jane Doe
Defendant:
Alberto R. Gonzales, Robert Gates and Michael Chertoff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Xing v. Gonzales et al
as 4:2007cv00723
Plaintiff:
Yan Xing
Defendant:
Michael Chertoff, Emilio T Gonzalez, Evelyn M Upchurch and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Martinez v. Barrows et al
as 3:2007cv00342
Plaintiff:
Ivan Martinez
Defendant:
Angela K Barrows, Michael Chertoff and Alberto R Gonzales
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Suarez v. Barrows et al
as 3:2007cv00343
Plaintiff:
Mariela Suarez
Defendant:
Angela K Barrows, Michael Chertoff and Alberto R Gonzales
Cause Of Action: 8 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing
Ge v. Chertoff et al
as 3:2007cv00332
Plaintiff:
An Ge
Defendant:
Michael Chertoff, Emilio T Gonzalez, Evelyn Upchurch and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2007cv00299
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Minnfee v. Gonzales et al
as 2:2007mc00006
Plaintiff:
Barry Dwayne Minnfee
Defendant:
Daniel R Gonzales, J Soape and D Glenn
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.
