Cases 11 - 20 of 34
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00157
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00295
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00231
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00097
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00228
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00194
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
APONTE v. MCCARTHY
as 4:2021cv00193
Plaintiff:
IVAN. E. APONTE and IVAN E APONTE
Defendant:
RYAN D MCCARTHY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AT WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
STANTON v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
as 3:2021cv00118
Plaintiff:
BRIAN STANTON
Defendant:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2020cv00212
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2020cv00257
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Not Classified By Court:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
