Cases 11 - 20 of 45
Horner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
as 3:2019cv00571
Defendant:
Commissioner Social Security Administration
Plaintiff:
David Ray Horner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0405 g
David Arnold v. Aramark Corporation, et al
as 19-35007
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN DOE, #2, JOHN DOE, #3, JOHN DOE, #1 and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID RAY ARNOLD
Arnold v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2018cv00366
Plaintiff:
David Ray Arnold
Defendant:
John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Arnold v. Aramark Corporation et al
as 3:2018cv00025
Defendant:
Aramark Corporation, Sandi Doe, John Doe #1 and others
Plaintiff:
David Ray Arnold
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
USA v. David Davis
as 17-30183
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DAVID RAY DAVIS
David Mills v. Mark Bowen, et al
as 17-15989
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID RAY MILLS
Defendant - Appellee:
MARK BOWEN, Warden, LE YOUNG, Doctor at Central Valley MCCF, GEO CORRECTIONS and others
Ash et al v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
as 2:2017cv01218
Plaintiff:
David Ray Ash and Eva Ash
Defendant:
C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al
as 2:2017cv00120
Plaintiff:
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
Defendant:
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jo Ellen Darcy, Todd T Semonite and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Arnold v. Intermountain Public Defenders Inc. et al
as 2:2016cv01205
Plaintiff:
David Ray Arnold
Defendant:
Thomas Gray and Intermountain Public Defenders Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Teeples v. USA
as 9:2016cv00071
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
David Ray Teeples
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
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.
