Cases 21 - 30 of 232
ECKES v. PRETORIUS
as 2:2023cv00583
Petitioner:
AUSTIN ECKES
Respondent:
PRETORIUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ABDELSALEM et al v. BLINKEN et al
as 1:2023cv02233
Plaintiff:
RAMADAN MUHAMMED ABDELSALEM, BORAK AHMED ALAGHA and HASHEM AHMED ALAGHA
Defendant:
ANTONY J. BLINKEN and LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv02213
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
CROSS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 1:2023cv02173
Plaintiff:
VINCENT E. CROSS
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, EMERSON, AUSTIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
AUSTIN, JR. v. COOK INCORPORATED et al
as 1:2023cv01953
Plaintiff:
RICHARD C. AUSTIN, JR.
Defendant:
COOK INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL LLC and WILLIAM COOK EUROPE APS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
MONTEIRO v. CARTER et al
as 1:2023cv01752
Plaintiff:
AUSTIN LEE MONTEIRO
Defendant:
JASON CARTER and UNIDENTIFIED IDOC MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NEATHERY v. RETTER
as 1:2023cv01723
Petitioner:
AUSTIN NEATHERY
Respondent:
RANDY RETTER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
R2X, LLC v. WINDSOR
as 1:2023cv01568
Plaintiff:
R2X, LLC doing business as Ready-2-Xecute
Defendant:
Austin Windsor
AUSTIN v. MCU
as 4:2023cv00146
Petitioner:
CANDY AUSTIN
Respondent:
MCU
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bryson v. Lippert Component Plant 58 et al
as 3:2023cv00729
Plaintiff:
Tyaire A Bryson
Defendant:
Lippert Component Plant 58, Austin Adams, Jackie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
