Cases 11 - 20 of 55
motley v. JaNae Rocquel Motley Estate et al et al
as 1:2023cv10268
Plaintiff:
janae rocquel motley
Defendant:
JaNae Rocquel Motley Estate et al, Dymarion Rashad Brooks Estate et al, Derrion Rashad Brooks Estate et al and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Michael Carter v. Megan Hayes, et al
as 23-2200
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL CARTER
Defendant / Appellee:
MEGAN HAYES, Probation Officer and ADAMS COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Carter v. Hayes et al
as 1:2023cv00312
Plaintiff:
Michael Carter
Defendant:
Megan Hayes and Adams County Probation Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Carter et al v. Dupuy et al
as 3:2023cv00069
Plaintiff:
Amanda Carter and Michael Carter
Defendant:
Chad Dupuy, Jason Ard and Livingston Parish School Board
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02341
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Walker v. Carter et al
as 2:2021cv01393
Plaintiff:
Chelsea Walker
Defendant:
Showanda Carter, Brianna Carter, Michael Carter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cantrell v. Conely et al
as 5:2021cv00227
Plaintiff:
Stephanie Lynn Music Cantrell and Slim Shady
Defendant:
Johnathan Matthew Conely, Snoop Serious Pimp Records LTD, Jay Z and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2020cv00861
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Davis v. City of Dawson Texas et al
as 3:2019cv01751
Defendant:
CITY OF DAWSON, MICHAEL CARTER and City of Dawson Texas
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL BERNARD DAVIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Netter et al v. Carter et al
as 5:2019cv00511
Plaintiff:
Maggie Netter
Defendant:
Michael Carter and City of Shreveport
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.
