Cases 11 - 20 of 10,254
Edin Velasquez-Moreno v. U.S. Attorney General
as 24-11692
Petitioner:
EDIN EDGARDO VELASQUEZ-MORENO
Respondent:
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv03777
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Gilberto Garcia v. Merrick Garland, et al
as 24-3443
Petitioner:
GILBERTO OROPEZA GARCIA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Sanchez-Sanchez v. Garland
as 24-60258
Petitioner:
Segundo Alejandro Sanchez-Sanchez
Respondent:
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Gramajo-Reyes v. Garland
as 24-60253
Petitioner:
Roland Omar Gramajo-Reyes
Respondent:
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv03712
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Ortiz-Sanchez v. Garland
as 24-60250
Petitioner:
Katherine Johani Ortiz-Sanchez
Respondent:
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Walmart, Inc. v. Jean King, et al
as 24-11733
Plaintiff:
WALMART, INC.
Defendant:
JEAN KING, In her official capacity as Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, In her official capacity as Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his Official Capacity as U.S. Attorney General and others
Alvardo Alvardo v. Garland
as 24-60248
Petitioner:
Jose Elenilson Alvardo Alvardo
Respondent:
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv03650
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
