Cases 11 - 18 of 18
PERALES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
as 1:2017cv02268
Plaintiff:
AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DESERT-MOUNTAIN REGION -- BARSTOW OFFICE, OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Potter v. Florida Bar Association et al
as 9:2017cv80865
Defendant:
State Attorney Peter Antonacci, John Doe 1-500, Magistrate Joy B Scherer and others
Plaintiff:
Rebecca Potter
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Bey v. United States Government Corporation et al
as 4:2016cv02111
Plaintiff:
Maurese Bey
Defendant:
United States Government Corporation, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
MCCRAY v. UNITE HERE et al
as 1:2013cv06540
Plaintiff:
EMANUEL MCCRAY
Defendant:
UNITE HERE, UNITE HERE GENERAL EXECUTIVE BOARD, UNITE HERE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Perales v. State of California et al
as 1:2011cv01219
Defendant:
State of California, California Unemployment Development Department, California Unemployment Development Department - Tax Office Anaheim CA and others
Plaintiff:
Azael Dythian Perales
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Francis v. United States of America FTCA et al
as 3:2007cv06125
Plaintiff:
Kaytrena J. Francis
Defendant:
United States of America, United States Air Force, Col Edmond Keith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Modena v. United States Department of Justice et al
as 1:2009cv00534
Plaintiff:
Michael John Modena
Defendant:
United States Department of Justice, United States of America, Margaret Chiara and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Starling v. United States Department of Justice
as 5:2007cv00466
Plaintiff:
Edward Starling
Defendant:
United States Department of Justice
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
