Cases 1 - 10 of 138
Craven Casper v. USA, et al
as 24-5051
Plaintiff:
Craven Casper
Defendant:
United States of America and Clerk of Court, United States District Court, District of Columbia
Harel Talasazan v. Robert M. Farrell et al
as 2:2024cv01356
Defendant:
Attorney Poonam Patidar, Robert M. Farrell, Maria R. Hamilton and others
Plaintiff:
Harel Talasazan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Craven Casper v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al
as 24-10400
Plaintiff:
CRAVEN CASPER
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Craven Casper v. USA, et al
as 24-10398
Plaintiff:
CRAVEN CASPER
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ROBERT WALTERS
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00142
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Casper v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2024cv20322
Plaintiff:
Craven Casper
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv20214
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12182 Americans with Disabilities Act
Williams v. Williams et al
as 1:2024cv10110
Plaintiff:
Sabrina M Williams and Pro se litigant Sabrina M Williams
Defendant:
Rayon Williams and Denise J. Casper
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Corlett v. Tong et al
as 3:2024cv00078
Plaintiff:
J. Angelo Corlett
Defendant:
William Tong, Monica J Casper and Does 1 through 50
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 vp Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection
Casper v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2023cv24804
Plaintiff:
Craven Casper
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Robert Walters
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
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.
