Cases 1 - 10 of 532
Hendrick v. Dean, Jr. et al
as 1:2024cv01214
Plaintiff:
Larnell E. Hendrick
Defendant:
Robert Dean, Jr., Lieutnant Ahmed, Dr. Moore and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01149
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 5 U.S.C. § 1158 Immigration & Nationality Act, Section 208 (Asylum)
Hare v. Upper Marlboro Detention Center et al
as 1:2024cv00588
Plaintiff:
Antoine Javon Hare
Defendant:
Upper Marlboro Detention Center, Terence Clark, Officer H. Stanback and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Cabeza Robles v. Wait Pesterfield
as 1:2024cv00518
Plaintiff:
Augustine E. Cabeza Robles and Agustin E. Cabeza Robles
Defendant:
Wait Pesterfield
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv00417
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedures Act
Lettieri v. Hugnet et al
as 1:2024cv00248
Plaintiff:
David C. Lettieri
Defendant:
Hugnet and Randall E. Garver
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Houck v. Warden
as 1:2024cv00209
Petitioner:
James E. Houck, Sr.
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Woodland v. Arches System, LLC.
as 1:2023cv03549
Plaintiff:
Charles E. Woodland
Defendant:
Arches System, LLC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
McGill v. Bohrer et al
as 1:2023cv03067
Petitioner:
Kenneth E. McGill, Jr.
Defendant:
Maryland Attorney General
Respondent:
Bohrer
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03014
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
