Cases 11 - 20 of 365
USA v. Lee
as 23-30563
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
John S. Lee
Rhodes v. Judge Tom S. Lee et al
as 1:2023cv02680
Plaintiff:
Jon Allen Rhodes
Defendant:
US District Court Judge Tom S. Lee, Supreme Court Of Appeals, 20th District Court and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Montez v. Aguirre & Gonzalez et al
as 5:2023cv00448
Plaintiff:
Christopher Rick Montez
Defendant:
Aguirre & Gonzalez, Ramos & Del Cueto, Jeffrey C. Anderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lee v. Tuscaloosa City Schools et al
as 7:2023cv00409
Plaintiff:
Johnnie S Lee
Defendant:
Tuscaloosa City Schools, Paulette Cobb, Deron Cameron and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00240
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Michael Foster v. C. Crosby, et al
as 23-15372
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL BARKARRI FOSTER
Defendant / Appellee:
C. CROSBY, (C.O.), J. PUENTE, (SGT), C. PARRY, (Capt.) and others
Bey v. Thompson et al
as 3:2023cv00012
Plaintiff:
Richard Amun'Ra Bey
Defendant:
Bennie Thompson, Tate Reeves, Lynn Fitch and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00001
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sexual Harassment)
Ruth v. King County Department of Adult Detention et al
as 2:2022cv01834
Plaintiff:
Matthew R Ruth
Defendant:
King County Department of Adult Detention, Frazier, Ali and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
KIM v. ECO PRO LLC et al
as 2:2022cv07281
Plaintiff:
IKHAN KIM
Defendant:
ECO PRO LLC and JOHN S LEE
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.
