Cases 1 - 10 of 62
Parks v. North Carolina Child Support Services et al
as 5:2024cv00220
Plaintiff:
Antonio Cortez Parks
Defendant:
North Carolina Child Support Services and Verna Donnelly
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Parks v. Raleigh Police Department
as 5:2024cv00200
Plaintiff:
Antonio Cortez Parks
Defendant:
Raleigh Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Cortez v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01523
Petitioner:
Jose Antonio Cortez
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Beck #268116 v. Burgess et al
as 1:2023cv00783
Plaintiff:
Antonio Cortez Beck #268116
Defendant:
Michael Burgess, Unknown Millicheck and Unknown Part(y)(ies)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Maria Aragon-Velasquez, et al v. Merrick B. Garland
as 23-1875
Petitioner:
MARIA JULIA ARAGON-VELASQUEZ, JOHANA MARIA GARCIA-ARAGON and MARCOS ANTONIO CORTEZ-ARAGON
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States
Cortez v. Lumpkin
as 23-50027
Petitioner / Appellant:
Jose Antonio Cortez
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Briseno v. Thithi Restaurant Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv04186
Plaintiff:
Antonio Cortez Briseno
Defendant:
Thithi Restaurant Inc., Thi Thi Pham and Tam Nguyen
Buckley v. Wagstaffe et al
as 3:2021cv07309
Plaintiff:
Antonio Cortez Buckley
Defendant:
Stephen M Wagstaffe, Sharon Cho, Allyson Bankhead and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CORTEZ v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv42442
Plaintiff:
JOSE ANTONIO CORTEZ
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
GLADNEY v. USA
as 1:2021cv00548
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
ANTONIO CORTEZ GLADNEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
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.
