Civil Rights Cases filed in the Ninth Circuit Courts
Cases 1 - 10 of 75
Armstrong v. Rentals et al
as 3:2023cv04707
Plaintiff: Clyde Armstrong
Defendant: Mark Rentals, Predo Rodrigous, Carline Rodrigous and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Gary Dubin, et al v. Supreme Court State of Hawaii, et al
as 21-16863
Plaintiff / Appellant: GARY VICTOR DUBIN, individually and on behalf of all Hawaii attorneys similarly situated, DBA Dubin Law Offices, CHRISTIE ADAMS, TORU AKEHI and others
Defendant / Appellee: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, in its legislative rule-making capacity and in its judicial capacity, THE HONORABLE MARK E. RECKENWALD, in his official capacity while serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, THE HONORABLE PAULA A. NAKAYAMA, in her official capacity while serving as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii and others
Paul Lietz, et al v. Drug Enforcement Administration, et al
as 23-35603
Plaintiff / Appellant: PAUL LIETZ
Plaintiff: SAKAHANN OUCH, VUTHA REN and L. S., a minor
Defendant / Appellee: DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, COLIN FINE, Special Agent, in his personal and/or official capacity, DAVID CLYDE, Special Agent, in his personal and/or official capacity and others
Defendant: CANYON COUNTY, CANYON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CARY SALAZAR and others
Jesse Hernandez, et al v. County of Monterey, et al
as 23-16027
Plaintiff / Appellee: JESSE HERNANDEZ, ROBERT ROBERT, RICHARD MURPHY and others
Intervenor / Appellee: MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION, PATRICIA RAMIREZ and others
Defendant / Appellant: COUNTY OF MONTEREY, MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP
Mark Moskowitz et al v. Jeffrey Brooks et al
as 2:2023cv04128
Plaintiff: Mark R Moskowitz and Nancy Parris Moskowitz
Petitioner: Saintfield Holdings
Defendant: Jeffrey Brooks, Clyde Turner, Turner Investments and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Tracy Gillis v. Chandra Chapman, et al
as 22-35840
Plaintiff / Appellant: TRACY GILLIS
Defendant / Appellee: CHANDRA E. CHAPMAN, in her individual capacity and as an official of the State of Oregon, JORDAN MEYER, in his individual capacity and as an official of the State of Oregon, DIANE BEECHINOR, in her individual capacity and as an official of the State of Oregon and others
Defendant: KELLY HICKMAN, CLYDE SAIKI and OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Agerea Sanchez v. Divinity Prophet and Associates et al
as 2:2022cv07849
Plaintiff: Agerea Sanchez
Defendant: Divinity Prophet and Associates, Clyde Cassel and Joletta D. Cassel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Fair Housing Act
Amitkumar Shah et al v. In the Matter of the City of Los Angeles Application for Abatement Warrant for the property at 10721 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90061 et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2022cv06314
Petitioner: Amitkumar Shah, Shefali A. Shah, Taren Gardner and others
Respondent: In the Matter of the City of Los Angeles Application for Abatement Warrant for the property at 10721 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90061 dba"108 Motel, Inc." and In the Matter of the City of Los Angeles Application for Abatement Warrant for the property at 10721 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90061 dba 108 Motel, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Armstrong v. Rentels et al
as 3:2022cv04525
Plaintiff: Clyde Armstrong
Defendant: Mark Rentels, Predo Rodrgous, Mark Rodrgous and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lietz, et al. v. Drug Enforcement Administration, et al. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2022cv00209
Plaintiff: Paul Lietz, Sakahann Ouch, Vutha Ren and others
Defendant: Drug Enforcement Administration, SA Colin Fine, SA David Clyde and others
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.


Why Is My Information Online?