Cases 21 - 30 of 17,346
Coleman v. Uhler
as 9:2024cv01033
Plaintiff:
Beau Coleman
Defendant:
Superintendent Uhler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Toby v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low
as 5:2024cv00441
Petitioner:
Jamie Toby
Respondent:
Warden, FCC Coleman - Low
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Coleman v. AFAM Concept, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv07542
Plaintiff:
Joycelyn Morns Coleman
Defendant:
Loreal USA, Inc., Loreal USA Products, Inc., AFAM Concept, Inc. administrator d/b/a JF Labs, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Coleman, Timothy v. Jerzewski, Joseph et al
as 3:2024cv00586
Defendant:
John Doe #2, John Doe #1 and Joseph Jerzewski
Plaintiff:
Timothy Coleman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
(PS) Coleman v. Fang et al
as 2:2024cv02248
Defendant:
Xiaoyan Fang and Ye Feng
Plaintiff:
Jacqueline Coleman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Thomas v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I
as 5:2024cv00435
Respondent:
Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I
Petitioner:
Shannon Ray Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Coleman v. Loreal USA, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv07434
Defendant:
Loreal USA, Inc., SoftSheen-Carson, LLC, Dabur International Ltd. and others
Plaintiff:
Mary Coleman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Coleman v. USA
as 5:2024cv00188
Petitioner:
Matthew Zachary Coleman
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv01047
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 American Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02391
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
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.
