Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Damon Gillette v. David Ruch et al
as 2:2024cv00555
Plaintiff:
Damon Gillette
Defendant:
David Ruch, Elizabeth Ann Fisher and Does 1 To 20
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Segal v. Wright Medical Group
as 4:2017cv00355
Plaintiff:
Anne Fisher Segal
Defendant:
Wright Medical Group
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Fisher v. Ryan et al
as 2:2012cv02307
Petitioner:
Kathy Ann Fisher
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tyrone Adams v. Charles Easley, et al
as 12-16537
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TYRONE L. ADAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES L. EASLEY, ANDREW J. PAULSON, CGLS, INC., AKA Lee Road Investors and others
Tyrone Adams v. Charles Easley, et al
as 12-16004
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TYRONE L. ADAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES L. EASLEY, ANDREW J. PAULSON, CGLS, INC., AKA Lee Road Investors and others
Serafine v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 2:2012cv00274
Plaintiff:
Lucas M Serafine
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation , Matthew Cate , CDR Division of Adult Parole Operations and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tyrone Adams v. Charles Easley, et al
as 11-17619
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TYRONE L. ADAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES L. EASLEY, ANDREW J. PAULSON, CGLS, INC., AKA Lee Road Investors and others
Azeem v. Fisher
as 2:2011cv01091
Plaintiff:
Mikaeel Y Azeem
Defendant:
Margaret Ann Fisher
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Adams v. Easley et al
as 2:2011cv00913
Plaintiff:
Tyrone L. Adams
Defendant:
Charles L. Easley, Andrew J. Paulson, CGLS Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
Adams v. Easley et al
as 2:2011cv00826
Plaintiff:
Tyrone L Adams
Defendant:
Charles L Easley, Andrew J Paulson, CGLS Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of 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.
