Cases 21 - 30 of 64
MULDROW v. SESSIONS et al
as 1:2017cv01347
Plaintiff:
LEALON (AMIR MUSA) MULDROW
Defendant:
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, THOMAS KANE, IAN CONNERS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
HOLT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2017cv00973
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA PAUL HILTON HOLT
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES MILITARY, SECRET SERVICE AGENCY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BRYANT v. WELLS FARGO BANK & CO. et al
as 1:2016cv02451
Plaintiff:
RONNIE LEON BRYANT
Defendant:
WELLS FARGO BANK & COMPANY, JOHN STUMPF, STEPHEN SANGER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RAMIREZ v. HICKENLOOPER et al
as 1:2016cv01882
Plaintiff:
LUIS ALFONSO SOLARES RAMIREZ
Defendant:
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, RICK RAEMISH, TIANO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. STATE OF HAWAII et al
as 1:2016cv01363
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY T. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
STATE OF HAWAII, DAVID IGE, STATE OF GEORGIA ATTORNEY GENERAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HARRIS v. SAMUELS et al
as 1:2016cv01012
Plaintiff:
DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS
Defendant:
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., DUNBAR, JOHN & JANE DOES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SCIOLI v. CITY OF NEW BERN et al
as 1:2016cv00877
Plaintiff:
DANA SCIOLI
Defendant:
CITY OF NEW BERN, COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, CIA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TAYLOR et al v. SAMUELS et al
as 1:2014cv01875
Plaintiff:
RALPH TAYLOR, WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS and ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Defendant:
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., SARAH QURESHI and JOHN/ JANE DOES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PASSMORE v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 1:2014cv01742
Plaintiff:
JOHN PASSMORE
Defendant:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
HILL v. CONTRERAS et al
as 1:2014cv01075
Plaintiff:
DAVID E. HILL
Defendant:
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS and JANE DOE
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.
