Cases 1 - 10 of 25,750
White v. City of Memphis, TN et al
as 2:2024cv02340
Plaintiff:
Mark White, Sr. doing business as Tokyo Nights
Defendant:
City of Memphis, TN and Paul Young
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lee v. City of Brownsville et al
as 1:2024cv01108
Plaintiff:
Andrew Terrell Lee
Defendant:
City of Brownsville, Haywood County, Billy H. Garrett, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02338
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Harris et al v. Federated Security Solutions, LLC., d/b/a Signal 88 Security et al
as 2:2024cv02339
Plaintiff:
MarTerrio Harris and Lacasta Brooks
Defendant:
Federated Security Solutions, LLC., d/b/a Signal 88 Security, Huston S. Akins and Ben Teaford
Vaughn v. 31-W Insulation Co., Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02341
Plaintiff:
Danario Vaughn
Defendant:
31-W Insulation Co., Inc. and Connie Williamson
Mueller Brass Co. v. Crompton
as 2:2020cv02496
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Negotiable Instrument
Schmitt v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
as 2:2024cv02188
Plaintiff:
Donna Schmitt
Defendant:
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Johnson v. United States of America
as 2:2024cv02336
Petitioner:
Stanley D. Johnson
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Brooks v. United States of America
as 2:2024cv02337
Petitioner:
Unique Brooks
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Florez-Ramirez
as 2:2024cv02335
Plaintiff:
Florez-Ramirez
Defendant:
Jacques Jones, Tracy Williams, Carlus Cleaves and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner 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.
