Cases 21 - 30 of 27,288
Ouellete #766867 v. Michigan Department of Corrections Parole Board et al
as 2:2024cv00089
Plaintiff:
Scott Mitchell Ouellete #766867
Defendant:
Michigan Department of Corrections Parole Board and Sarah Schroeder
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rulapaugh #096633 v. Armenta et al
as 2:2024cv01307
Plaintiff:
Kenneth D Rulapaugh
Defendant:
Christine Armenta, Alexandra Mardesich, Roberta Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mitchell v. Jones
as 1:2024cv02411
Petitioner:
Kaivon Mitchell
Respondent:
Joshua Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
USI Insurance Services LLC v. Mitchell et al
as 3:2024cv00523
Plaintiff:
USI Insurance Services LLC
Defendant:
Douglas Mitchell and Reed Schacht
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Miles v. Hermann et al
as 3:2024cv01422
Plaintiff:
Billy Miles
Defendant:
C/O Hermann and David Mitchell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mitchel v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 2:2024cv00768
Plaintiff:
Cameron Mitchel
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 423 Social Security Act (Disability Insurance Benefit Payments)
Khademi v. Superior Court of Placer County, et al.
as 24-3447
Plaintiff:
DAVOOD KHADEMI
Defendant:
SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY, PAUL WAYNE COMISKEY, Criminal Defense Attorney, KEVIN DOHERTY, Criminal Defense Attorney and others
MITCHELL v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP.
as 1:2024cv00917
Plaintiff:
SYLVIA MITCHELL
Defendant:
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1498
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
William Abner v. US
as 24-1492
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM ABNER, SHANE BOGGS, PATRICK BOWLING and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
