Cases 51 - 60 of 346
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv05968
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv05945
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Amicus Curiae:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Timothy Doyle Young v. United States Department of Justice
as 2:2021cv05841
Plaintiff:
Timothy Doyle Young
Defendant:
United States Department of Justice
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv04667
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv04304
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv03352
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Pittman v. United States Department of Justice et al
as 3:2021cv02372
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Department of Justice
Petitioner:
Randy Dewayne Pittman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv02417
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Clifton v. United States Department of Justice, et al
as 1:2021cv00089
Plaintiff:
Dominique Clifton
Defendant:
Jeffrey A. Rosen, Regina Lombardo, United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
The Diennet Pharmacy et al v. United States Department of Justice et al
as 2:2021cv00533
Defendant:
U.S.Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and United States Department of Justice
Plaintiff:
Dr, Marcel Diennet, The Diennet Pharmacy and Dr Marcel Diennet
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
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.
