Cases 51 - 60 of 217
Eye v. Bechtold
as 5:2013cv00374
Plaintiff:
David Eye
Defendant:
William Bechtold and Eric Holder
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
Nieto v. Holder et al
as 0:2013cv61578
Plaintiff:
Lucas Nieto
Defendant:
Eric Holder , Janet Napolitano , Alejandro Mayorkas and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Mojica v. Holder et al
as 3:2013cv00831
Petitioner:
Waldemar Harvey Quijano Mojica
Respondent:
Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and Joey B. Dobson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MOLINA v. HOLDER
as 3:2013cv00825
Petitioner:
DIEGO MOLINA
Respondent:
Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Mark Moore and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Mau v. Lockett et al
as 5:2013cv00325
Plaintiff:
Clinton Mau
Defendant:
Charles L. Lockett, D. Drew, FNU O'Brian and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2013cv00381
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2013cv00245
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Cranston v. Eric Holder et al
as 2:2013cv00466
Petitioner:
Rohan Carl Cranston
Respondent:
Eric Holder , Janet Napolitano , Mark Moore and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
KHORRAM v. HOLDER
as 3:2013cv00351
Plaintiff:
JACK KHORRAM
Defendant:
ERIC HOLDER
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 4208 (B) Agency Action Review
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2013cv00211
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
