Cases 1 - 10 of 34
DIAMONTE v. HENDERSON et al
as 2:2023cv03596
Plaintiff:
MARIA DIAMONTE
Defendant:
Taja Nia Henderson, Kim Perry, Gary Farnese and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00106
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv03163
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
KING v. TYRRELL et al
as 1:2021cv12853
Defendant:
JOHN TYRRELL, MONICA WARNER, TAMARA HENDERSON and others
Plaintiff:
SHAWN KING, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
SAPP v. MCLAUGHLIN et al
as 3:2021cv12218
Defendant:
KAY WALCOTT-HENDERSON, BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN and THOMAS WALLS JR
Plaintiff:
RASHON SAPP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SAPP v. MCLAUGHLIN et al
as 3:2021cv12224
Defendant:
JUDGE THOMAS WALLS JR, FAMILY COURT JUDGE BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN, FAMILY COURT JUDGE KAY WALCOTT-HENDERSON and others
Plaintiff:
RASHON SAPP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SAPP v. WALCOTT-HENDERSON et al
as 3:2021cv12104
Defendant:
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE KAY WALCOTT-HENDERSON, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE THOMAS WALLS JR and others
Plaintiff:
RASHON SAPP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv09659
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
HENDERSON v. TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON et al
as 3:2019cv18656
Defendant:
JOHN DOES 1-10, TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON (MERCER COUNTY), HAMILTON TOWNSHIP REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID HENDERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv17074
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
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.
