Cases 1 - 10 of 250
Lin v. Wray et al
as 3:2024cv00778
Plaintiff:
Ke-Wei Lin
Defendant:
Christopher Wray, DOJ, Chad Yarbrough and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
(PS) Guyton v. City of Stockton et al
as 2:2024cv00922
Plaintiff:
Antonio Guyton
Defendant:
City of Stockton, City of Stockton Police Department, Vincent Magna and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00052
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-4021
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Saito et al v. Chappell
as 2:2023cv00962
Plaintiff:
Koichi Saito and Lynnea Saito
Defendant:
Sheri Chappell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Chappel v. Hunter et al
as 1:2023cv00728
Plaintiff:
Dawn M Chappel
Defendant:
Magistrate David M Hunter, Tyler Cantrell, Mackenzie Carrington and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv02003
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Lavita McClain v. Mark Reynolds, et al
as 23-2691
Plaintiff / Appellee:
LAVITA MCCLAIN, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Ta'Neasha Chappell
Defendant / Appellant:
MARK REYNOLDS, in his individual capacity, MATT STILLWELL, in his individual capacity and MICHAEL DAVISSON, in his individual capacity
Raymond A. Green v. D. Samuel et al
as 2:2023cv06347
Plaintiff:
Raymond A. Green
Defendant:
D. Samuel, A. Sanchez, S. Rizo and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Dawn Chappel v. Adams County Children's Services, et al
as 23-3526
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAWN M. CHAPPEL
Defendant / Appellee:
ADAMS COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES and ASHLEE MOORE
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.
