Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Harry James v. US
as 22-6388
Plaintiff / Appellant:
HARRY SHAROD JAMES
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Harry James v. Kenneth Lassiter
as 22-6317
Plaintiff / Appellant:
HARRY SHAROD JAMES
Defendant / Appellee:
KENNETH E. LASSITER, TOM BRICKHOUSE, INA HINTON and others
James v. Peoples Republic of China et al
as 5:2022ct03007
Plaintiff:
Harry Sharod James and Moustapha Sharod Khalifa-El
Defendant:
Peoples Republic of China, Wuhan Institute of Virology and Chinese Communist Party
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
James v. Craggy Correctional Center Mail Room et al
as 1:2021cv00191
Plaintiff:
Harry Sharod James and Harry Sharod James-El
Defendant:
Craggy Correctional Center Mail Room, Eric A. Hooks and North Carolina Department of Public Safety-DAC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James v. United States
as 5:2021ct03191
Defendant:
United States
Plaintiff:
Harry Sharod James
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JAMES-EL v. UNITED STATES et al
as 1:2021cv00528
Plaintiff:
HARRY SHAROD JAMES-EL
Defendant:
JOE L. WEBSTER, LORETTA C. BIGGS and UNITED STATES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
JAMES-EL v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2020cv01060
Plaintiff:
HARRY SHAROD JAMES-EL
Defendant:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
JAMES-EL v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2020cv00762
Plaintiff:
HARRY SHAROD JAMES-EL
Defendant:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JAMES-EL v. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA et al
as 1:2020cv00517
Plaintiff:
HARRY SHAROD JAMES-EL and MUSTAFA MUTA
Defendant:
XI JINPING and THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JAMES v. HOOKS et al
as 1:2020cv00203
Plaintiff:
HARRY SHAROD JAMES-EL
Defendant:
ERIK A. HOOKS, FNU DIGGS, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
