Cases 1 - 10 of 10
TEIXEIRA v. MCDONALD
as 1:2018cv01304
Plaintiff:
LUKE C. TEIXEIRA
Defendant:
ROBERT A. MCDONALD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BLACKFEATHER v. OBAMA et al
as 1:2016cv01022
Plaintiff:
MICAH BLACKFEATHER
Defendant:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, DONALD J. TRUMP, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BLACKFEATHER v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION
as 1:2015cv00548
Plaintiff:
MICAH JAMES BLACKFEATHER
Defendant:
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CAMPBELL v. GARDEN CITY GROUP et al
as 1:2015cv00259
Plaintiff:
ROY OLIVER CAMPBELL
Defendant:
GARDEN CITY GROUP, JULIE CHAVEZ, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BERRY v. LIVINGSTON et al
as 1:2011cv01555
Plaintiff:
ODIS ODELL BERRY
Defendant:
BRAD LIVINGSTON, ADMINISTRATOR, IVORY RATTIFF and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROUDABUSH, JR. v. BURLINGTON COUNTY, et al. et al
as 1:2011cv01339
Plaintiff:
JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.
Defendant:
SUPERIOR COURT OF BURLINGTON COUNTY, JAMES PALMER, MICHAEL HAAS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCDONALD v. OBAMA et al
as 1:2009cv01897
Petitioner:
DAVID JOVON MCDONALD
Respondent:
BARACK OBAMA, HARLEY LAPPIN, D. SCOTT DODRILL and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
MCDONALD v. SUTER et al
as 1:2008cv00739
Plaintiff:
MAURICE J. MCDONALD
Defendant:
WILLIAM K. SUTER, RUTH JONES and OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
MCDONALD v. SUTER et al
as 1:2008cv00668
Plaintiff:
MAURICE J. MCDONALD
Defendant:
WILLIAM K. SUTER, RUTH JONES and OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
YANG v. CHERTOFF et al
as 1:2007cv00572
Petitioner:
YANG YANG
Respondent:
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, DEAN MCDONALDS and SUPERINTENDENT
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.
