Cases 41 - 50 of 368
Norman v. Doe et al
as 3:2023cv03271
Plaintiff:
Garred F. Norman
Defendant:
Federal Agent John Doe, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Attorney General Rob Bonta and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv03600
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv03566
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv03556
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Avila v. Kijakazi
as 4:2023cv02649
Defendant:
Social Security Administration, US Attorney General, Civil Process Clerk, Office of the United States Attorney and others
Plaintiff:
Ericka Avila
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 416 Denial of Social Security Benefits
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv03269
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Duddekunta v. Mayorkas
as 3:2023cv01026
Plaintiff:
Kishore Kumar Reddy Duddekunta and Kishore Kumar Reddy Reddy Duddekunta
Defendant:
Alejandro Mayorkas, US Attorney and Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv00854
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv00907
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00612
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
