Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Christopher Cisco v. Sue E. Myerscough, et al
as 24-1854
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER CISCO
Respondent:
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, SARA DARROW and COLLEEN R. LAWLESS
Interested Party:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ANDREW L. KILLIAN, STATE OF ILLINOIS and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv03104
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Cisco v. Zureck et al
as 0:2024cv01312
Plaintiff:
Christopher Cisco
Defendant:
Judith P. Zureck, Vatican, The and Saint Meinrad Archabbey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel, Assault, Slander
Cisco v. Killian et al
as 2:2024cv02094
Plaintiff:
Christopher Cisco
Defendant:
Andrew Killian and Matthew Fitton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Splant v. Cisco
as 2:2024cv02025
Defendant:
Christopher Cisco and Ford County Circuit Clerk
Plaintiff:
Kelly Splant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
People of the State of Illinois v. Christopher Cisco
as 24-1160
Plaintiff:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Defendant:
CHRISTOPHER CISCO
The People of the State of Illinois v. Cisco
as 2:2023cv02257
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Illinois
Defendant:
Christopher Cisco
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Cisco v. Killian et al
as 2:2023cv02254
Plaintiff:
Christopher Cisco
Defendant:
Andrew Killian, Matthew Fitton and . Duffy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CISCO v. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS et al
as 1:2023cv03354
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER CISCO
Defendant:
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MSGT FILLMAN, SGT S. SIGLAR and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
CISCO v. UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
as 1:2023cv03053
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER CISCO
Defendant:
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
