Cases 21 - 30 of 77
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01296
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01020
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01008
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1255 Failure USCIS To Adjudicate Permanent Residency Petition
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00622
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00131
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv04787
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
B. et al v. Romero et al
as 1:2022cv11851
Plaintiff:
F. B. and G. G.
Defendant:
Melvis C. Romero, Massachusetts Department of Corrections, Wellpath and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
B. et al v. Romero et al
as 1:2022cv11849
Plaintiff:
F. B., G. G. and Kristie Ladouceur
Defendant:
Melvis C. Romero, Department of Corrections of Massachusetts, Wellpath and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
CHEN v. JADDOU et al
as 2:2022cv03967
Plaintiff:
XIAOYING CHEN
Defendant:
Director UR M. JADDOU, Director KATHLEEN BAUSMAN, Secretary ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Romero v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv02741
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Maria C Romero
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
