Cases 1 - 10 of 589
DEESE et al v. FKH SFR PROPCO K, L.P. et al
as 1:2024cv00464
Plaintiff:
DAVID DEESE and JEANNE DEESE
Defendant:
FKH SFR PROPCO K, L.P. and FIRSTKEY HOMES, LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 3601 Fair Housing Act
NEPTUNE v. COBBLE RIDGE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION et al
as 1:2024cv00471
Plaintiff:
FRANTZ NEPTUNE
Defendant:
COBBLE RIDGE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION and DAVID J. DARIGO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
SEWELL v. BOP
as 1:2024cv00472
Petitioner:
DAVID ERIC SEWELL
Respondent:
BOP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
CLARK v. USA
as 1:2024cv00252
Petitioner:
DAVID FRANCIS CLARK
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
BROWNING v. MECKLENBURG COUNTY et al
as 1:2024cv00209
Plaintiff:
PIERRE BROWNING
Defendant:
MECKLENBURG COUNTY and DAVID LANGE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CARANZA v. PYLES et al
as 1:2024cv00208
Plaintiff:
JOSE M. CARANZA
Defendant:
OFFICER PYLES, OFFICER SHAFFER, WARDEN DAVID CASSIDY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STIREWALT v. RANGE VIEW MANAGEMENT LLC et al
as 1:2024cv00180
Plaintiff:
David Stirewalt
Defendant:
Range View Management LLC and Better Debt Solutions LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
COOK v. SURRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2024cv00162
Plaintiff:
CHARLES DAVID COOK
Defendant:
SURRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, OFFICER GOINS and ETHAN EVANS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SASSER COMPANIES, LLC v. DUTA
as 1:2024cv00107
Plaintiff:
Sasser Companies, LLC
Defendant:
David Duta and DAVID C. DUTA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330 Breach of Contract
GOINS v. O'MALLEY
as 1:2024cv00054
Plaintiff:
DAVID GOINS
Defendant:
MARTIN O'MALLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 402 Social Security Benefits
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.
