Cases 1 - 10 of 50
Castro v. Price et al
as 2:2026cv04124
Plaintiff:
Jacob Luis Castro
Defendant:
Christopher Price, Derek Flores and Tanner Lacoix
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Castro v. Price et al
as 2:2026cv03412
Plaintiff:
Jacob Luis Castro
Defendant:
Christopher Price and Tanner Lacoix
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Price v. USA
as 1:2026cv00064
Petitioner:
Christopher Price
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Cynthia Price, et al v. USA, et al
as 26-5048
Plaintiff:
Cynthia Catherine Price, also known as Cynthia Ballenger and Christopher John Price, also known as Christopher Price
Defendant:
United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Department of Justice
USA v. Cynthia Ballenger, et al
as 25-3080
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Cynthia Ballenger and Christopher Price
PRICE v. BISIGNANO
as 1:2025cv00382
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER PRICE
Defendant:
FRANK BISIGNANO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 402 Social Security Benefits
PRICE et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2025cv00795
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER JOHN PRICE, CYNTHIA BALLENGER, CHRISTOPHER PRICE and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Right to Privacy Act
Kevin Smith v. Christopher Price, et al
as 25-1041
Plaintiff:
KEVIN E. SMITH
Defendant:
CHRISTOPHER PRICE, BENJAMIN RILENGE and MARK LAMB
George Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., et al
as 24-1468
Defendant:
DARSHAN KARWAT, POLARIS STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, MARCUS LEHMANN and others
Plaintiff:
GEORGE SACHS, dba Paradyme Systems USA
George Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., et al
as 24-1420
Plaintiff:
GEORGE SACHS, dba Paradyme Systems USA
Defendant:
RICARDO INC., WESLEY SCHARMEN, PHILIP MICHAEL 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.
