Cases 41 - 50 of 100
Nettles et al v. Osborne et al
as 4:2025cv03102
Plaintiff:
Karla Gutierrez and Lyle Nettles
Defendant:
Deputy Tyson Osborne and Sheriff Alan Moore
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nettles v. USA
as 1:2025cv00119
Petitioner:
Jayma Edward Nettles
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv02083
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Counter-Claimant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Counter-Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1201 Civil Rights (Disability)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv02067
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1201 Civil Rights (Disability)
Johnson v. City of Moss Point, Mississippi
as 1:2025cv00114
Plaintiff:
Toni Nettles Johnson
Defendant:
City of Moss Point, Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv01875
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1201 Civil Rights (Disability)
Alexander et al v. Rapid Action LLC
as 1:2025cv00484
Plaintiff:
Jazmin Alexander, Aaliyah Batiste, Roshnique Brown and others
Defendant:
Rapid Action LLC doing business as RapidStaff
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Hayes v. Nettles, et al.
as 25-2102
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL THERON HAYES
Defendant:
RACHEL NETTLES, MICHAEL MONTGOMERY, CHARLES JOHANNESSEN and others
Jonathan Nettles v. Erik Skabardis, et al
as 25-1273
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN NETTLES
Defendant:
SERGEANT ERIK SKABARDIS, Bridgeport Township Police Department and DAVID DUFFETT, Bridgeport Township Chief of Police
Jonathan Nettles v. Erik Skabardis, et al
as 25-1272
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN NETTLES
Defendant:
SERGEANT ERIK SKABARDIS, Bridgeport Township Police Department and DAVID DUFFETT, Bridgeport Township Chief of Police
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.
