Cases 1 - 10 of 6,100
Borden v. DOJ - United States Department of Justice, et al.
as 24-3072
Plaintiff:
RONALD L. BORDEN
Defendant:
DOJ - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Case #1, MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Case #1, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Case #2 and others
Kothapalli v. Borden et al
as 2:2024cv00105
Plaintiff:
Vijay Kothapalli
Defendant:
Nicole Borden and All Others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal - Breach of Contract
Poore v. Lammer et al
as 3:2024cv50115
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Poore
Defendant:
Brian Lammer, Jenkins, Borden and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Rouse v. Mason County et al
as 3:2024cv05291
Plaintiff:
Rustin Lee Rouse and Rusty Lee Rouse
Defendant:
Mason County, Randy Newell, Kevin Hansen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BENNETT v. BORDEN et al
as 2:2024cv00071
Plaintiff:
KEVIN BENNETT
Defendant:
TYLER BORDEN, BARRETT and NOAH MILLER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Borden v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01329
Plaintiff:
Brian K Borden
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Securities and Exchange Commission et al
as 1:2024cv02621
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Mark Borden
Poore v. Lammer et al
as 1:2024cv01122
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Poore
Defendant:
Brian Lammer, . Jenkins, . Borden and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Rouse v. Hansen et al
as 3:2024cv05068
Plaintiff:
Rusty Lee Rouse
Defendant:
Kevin Hansen, David Guidrey, Randy Newell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BROWN v. BASFORD et al
as 5:2024cv00018
Plaintiff:
SHONDARIOUS CLEO BROWN
Defendant:
L BASFORD and R BORDEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner 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.
