Cases 21 - 27 of 27
Davidson v. United States of America et al
as 2:2011cv02996
Plaintiff:
Richard Eugene Davidson
Defendant:
United States of America, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives and Office of Information Policy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davidson v. United States of America et al
as 8:2011cv03041
Plaintiff:
Richard Eugene Davidson
Defendant:
United States of America, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives and Office of Information Policy
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Sewraz v. Bailey et al
as 3:2010cv00023
Plaintiff:
Chetanand Kumar Sewraz
Defendant:
Daniel Scott Bailey, Chesterfield County Police Department, Chesterfield County and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sheppard v. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
as 2:2008cv01052
Plaintiff:
Luther Wayne Sheppard
Defendant:
United States Dept. of Justice Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Henderson v. Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives et al
as 1:2008cv01845
Plaintiff:
David E. Henderson
Defendant:
Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, Bureau of immigration and customs enforcement, Department of Homeland Security and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Reeves v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al
as 7:2008cv00352
Plaintiff:
Yvonne Reeves
Defendant:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and Larry Hall
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Mullenix v. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms Technical Branch, Martinsburg, West Virginia
as 5:2007cv00154
Plaintiff:
Steven John Mullenix
Defendant:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms Technical Branch, Martinsburg, West Virginia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
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.
