Cases 11 - 20 of 1,333
RAMOS v. RACHEL THOMPSON
as 1:2024cv06645
Petitioner:
CHRISTIAN RAMOS
Respondent:
RACHEL THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv06612
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv06561
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
EUCEDA-CANALES v. WARDEN THOMPSON
as 1:2024cv06415
Petitioner:
MELVIN EUCEDA-CANALES
Respondent:
WARDEN THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
BARKER v. R. THOMPSON
as 1:2024cv06432
Petitioner:
BRANDON EARL BARKER
Respondent:
R. THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
BRYANT v. R. THOMPSON, WARDEN
as 1:2024cv06417
Petitioner:
RONNIE L. BRYANT
Respondent:
R. THOMPSON, WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv06454
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
SEWARD et al v. LUDDEN et al
as 3:2024cv06295
Plaintiff:
BARRY SEWARD, TRUDE SHERROD-POLAN and DOROTHY M. THOMPSON
Defendant:
CONSTANCE LUDDEN, THE CITY OF TRENTON, RACHEL HUNDLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv06287
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv06141
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
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.
