Cases 51 - 59 of 59
Perroton v. United States Marshal Service et al
as 3:2011cv02056
Petitioner:
Jon Perroton
Respondent:
United States Marshal Service and Santa Clara County Sheriff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hollins v. United States of America et al
as 4:2011cv01601
Petitioner:
Michael Hollins
Respondent:
United States of America and United States Marshal Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
USA v. $77,968.08 In Funds
as 2:2003cv08390
Defendant:
$77,968.08 In Funds Seized From East West Bank Account Number 81302010
Claimant:
CD Video Inc
Unknown:
Case Assignment Administrator, Rosalyn M Chapman, Dep In Chg So Div and others
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 0981 Civil Forfeiture
Collins v. United States Parole Commission et al
as 3:2010cv04679
Petitioner:
Bernest Collins
Respondent:
United States Parole Commission, United States Marshal Service and Gregory Ahern
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Collins v. United States Parole Commission et al
as 3:2009cv02645
Petitioner:
Bernest Collins
Respondent:
United States Parole Commission, United States Marshal Service and Gregory J. Ahern
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gant v. United States Marshal Service
as 3:2008cv00626
Plaintiff:
Jackson Willis Gant
Defendant:
United States Marshal Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2007cv00899
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2007cv03065
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Anderson vs. Akal Security, Inc., et al.
as 1:2007cv00293
Plaintiff:
Rodney Gene Anderson
Defendant:
Akal Security, Inc. and United States Marshals Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
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.
