Cases 1 - 10 of 10
WILLIAMS v. PELOSI
as 4:2022cv00453
Plaintiff:
JUDITH MARCIA WILLIAMS
Defendant:
NANCY PELOSI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
CHASE v. PELOSI et al
as 5:2022cv00196
Plaintiff:
LINDA CHASE
Defendant:
NANCY PELOSI, MERRICK GARLAND, JASON COODY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
CHASE v. PELOSI et al
as 3:2022cv17729
Plaintiff:
LINDA CHASE
Defendant:
NANCY PELOSI, US Attorney General MERRICK GARLAND, JASON COODY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MACTRUONG et al v. DESANTIS et al
as 4:2022cv00216
Plaintiff:
DMT MACTRUONG, NARAL PRO CHOICE AMERICA, KAMALA HARRIS and others
Defendant:
RONALD DESANTIS, WEBSTER BARNABY, CHRIS SPROWLS and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
TURNBULL v. BIDEN et al
as 4:2022cv00087
Plaintiff:
BRUCE A TURNBULL
Defendant:
JOSEPH BIDEN, KAMALA HARRIS, NANCY PELOSI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SMITH v. PELOSI et al
as 4:2021cv00030
Plaintiff:
FRANKLIN C SMITH
Defendant:
NANCY PELOSI and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GILBERT v. TRUMP et al
as 4:2019cv00072
Defendant:
ASHLEY MOODY, 3RD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT and others
Plaintiff:
CRAIG IVAN GILBERT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SWEENEY v. MCCONNELL
as 3:2011cv00517
Plaintiff:
DAVID LEONARD SWEENEY
Defendant:
MITCH MCCONNELL, HARRY REID, JOHN BOEHNER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
SWEENEY v. MCCONNELL
as 3:2011cv00516
Plaintiff:
DAVID LEONARD SWEENEY
Defendant:
MITCH MCCONNELL, HARRY REID, JOHN A BOEHNER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
BECKER v. HUDSON et al
as 4:2007cv00019
Petitioner:
JAN F BECKER
Respondent:
STEWART C HUDSON, G W BUSH, A GONZALES and others
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.
