Cases 31 - 40 of 79
DANTZLER v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION et al
as 1:2009cv02149
Plaintiff:
OSCAR DANTZLER
Defendant:
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, KEITH HILLS, AGENT DOES ONE-FIVE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Michael E. Garrett v. John E. Potter
as 2:2009cv07674
Plaintiff:
Michael E. Garrett
Defendant:
John E. Potter
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Forma Pauperis Denial
Dan Harris v. John E Potter
as 2:2009cv07478
Plaintiff:
Dan Harris
Defendant:
John E Potter
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act)
George v. Potter, et al
as 1:2003cv06052
Plaintiff:
Jody K George
Defendant:
John E Potter and United States Postal Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Reyna v. U.S. Postal Service et al
as 3:2008cv05526
Plaintiff:
Eddie Reyna
Defendant:
Adam Alvarez, Noemi Luna, Cecilia Denton and others
Mediator:
Arnold B. Haims
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Fields v. PotterDO NOT DOCKET IN (miscellaneous case number). ENTRIES SHOULD BE MADE IN THE RELATED CIVIL CASE.
as 3:2009mc00010
Plaintiff:
Kevin Fields
Defendant:
John E Potter
Rosario v. Potter
as 7:2007cv05891
Plaintiff:
Gladys Rosario
Defendant:
John E. Potter and Paul Hogrogian
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv02541
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (other)
Type:
Other Statutes
William L Scott v. John E Potter
as 2:2009cv06496
Plaintiff:
William L. Scott
Defendant:
John E. Potter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Adrienne P. Clayton v. John E. Potter
as 2:2009cv06479
Plaintiff:
Adrienne P. Clayton
Defendant:
John E. Potter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
