Cases 11 - 20 of 65
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv00208
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv00215
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Rodriguez v. Fuji Japanese Steakhouse & Sushi Bar, Inc.
as 1:2020cv00243
Defendant:
Fuji Japanese Steakhouse & Sushi Bar, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Karla Rodriguez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv00098
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Rodriguez v. USA
as 1:2020cv00072
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Enrique Rodriguez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Rodriguez v. California Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2020cv00032
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Lieutenant Thomas
Plaintiff:
John C. Rodriguez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2019cv00142
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Rodriguez v. GILLIS
as 5:2019cv00117
Plaintiff:
Juan Diego Ferrer Rodriguez
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Defendant:
SHAWN GILLIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Scott v. Forrest County, Ms et al
as 2:2019cv00166
Defendant:
Correctional Officer 41, Correctional Officer 56, Forrest County Regional Jail and others
Plaintiff:
Georgio Rodriguez Scott
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Scott v. Forrest County Jail et al
as 2:2019cv00124
Defendant:
Officer 59, Forrest County Jail and Officer 24
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Georgio Rodriguez Scott and Georgio Rodriquez Scott
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.
