Cases 1 - 10 of 2,145
Rondon-Castillo v. Garland
as 24-1395
Petitioner:
LUIS JOSE RONDON-CASTILLO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorrney General
Shallowhorn v. Lopez, et al.
as 24-2484
Plaintiff:
ALFRED EUGENE SHALLOWHORN
Defendant:
R. LOPEZ, Correctional Officer, Y. CASTILLO, Correctional officer, H. MOSELEY, Correctional Officer and others
Segura, et al. v. City of San Bernardino, et al.
as 24-2445
Plaintiff:
MARIA SEGURA, individually and as Successor in Interest to Nicholas Segura, deceased, MANUEL SEGURA, individually and as Successor in Interest to Nicholas Segura, deceased and VICTOR SEGURA, individually
Defendant:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CARLOS CASTILLO and JONATHAN KEIL
Castillo-Pizarro v. Garland
as 24-933
Petitioner:
BLANCA REBECA CASTILLO-PIZARRO, ALISON DANIELA ALVAREZ-CASTILLO and EVELYN JAZMIN ALVAREZ-CASTILLO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mata Castillo v. Garland
as 24-60154
Petitioner:
Ofelia Mata Castillo, Keyri Michelle Sorto Mata and Xiomara Cristal Sorto Mata
Respondent:
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00366
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
USA v. Norberto Castillo-Lopez
as 24-1500
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
NORBERTO CASTILLO-LOPEZ
United States of America v. Castillo
as 24-687
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
CANDIDO CASTILLO
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00423
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Alba Castillo-De Molina, et al v. Merrick B. Garland
as 24-1333
Petitioner:
ALBA LETICIA CASTILLO-DE MOLINA, OSCAR ARMANDO MOLINA-CASTILLO and JONATHAN ODIR MOLINA-CASTILLO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States
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.
