Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Wodesky v. Cooley-Dismukes
as 5:2026hc02156
Petitioner:
Andrew Wodesky
Respondent:
Leslie Cooley-Dismukes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dean v. Cain et al
as 3:2026cv00733
Plaintiff:
Clifton Dean
Defendant:
Burl Cain, John Hunt, Mike Dixon and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv03150
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Angelo Whitehurst v. Wesley Heckman
as 26-6948
Plaintiff:
ANGELO RONNELL WHITEHURST
Defendant:
WESLEY HECKMAN, SCOTT E. THOMAS, LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES and others
Lamons v. Thompson et al
as 3:2026cv00921
Plaintiff:
Tristen Lamons
Defendant:
Master Sgt. Octavia Thompson, Lt. Malik Haynes, Captain Travis Batiste and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Izen, Jr. v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
as 4:2026cv07135
Plaintiff:
Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. and Karen L. Cooley Izen
Defendant:
Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract
Alvin Smith v. Leslie Dismukes
as 26-6886
Petitioner:
ALVIN NATHANEL SMITH
Respondent:
LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2026cv00235
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Charles Randolph v. Leslie Dismukes
as 26-6877
Petitioner:
CHARLES B. RANDOLPH
Respondent:
LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction originally named as North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections
Cesario v. CBIZ, Inc., et al.
as 26-5235
Plaintiff:
JOHN CESARIO
Defendant:
BIOCEPT, INC., CBIZ, INC., CBIZ CPAS, PC and others
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.
