Cases 1 - 10 of 100
OSWALD v. SIMMONS et al
as 3:2026cv04710
Plaintiff:
CORY NOLE OSWALD
Defendant:
CHIP SIMMONS, NADIA ROCABADO-PANOZO and CHAD CONNEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Becker v. City of Princeton, Texas et al
as 4:2026cv00843
Plaintiff:
Kyle Michael Becker
Defendant:
City of Princeton, Texas, City of McKinney, Texas, Collin County, Texas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2026cv61702
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Aaebo-Akhan v. Connell, et al
as 26-3124
Plaintiff:
AKOSUA AAEBO-AKHAN
Defendant:
SARAH CONNELL, SEAN C. STAPLES, TERESA GRANT and others
Franklin v. Blanchard et al
as 1:2026cv00091
Plaintiff:
KHALID FRANKLIN
Defendant:
JUDGE GRADY BLANCHARD, GWENDOLYN BOVAN, Bobby L. Christine and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Connell v. Bisignano
as 1:2026cv01320
Plaintiff:
Tabitha Marie Connell
Defendant:
Frank Bisignano
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Roote v. Kershaw County et al
as 3:2026cv01960
Plaintiff:
Mark Roote
Defendant:
Kershaw County, Kershaw County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Lee Boan and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Connell v. State of Tennessee
as 2:2026cv02551
Petitioner:
Andrew T. Connell
Respondent:
State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kasadu v. Connell, et al.
as 26-2913
Plaintiff:
BLEAUREGARD KASADU
Defendant:
DAVID CONNELL, Judge, MICHAEL WU, Judge, individual capacity and SCOTT MANAGEMENT, LLC
FRANKLIN v. BLANCHARD et al
as 5:2026cv00172
Plaintiff:
KHALID FRANKLIN
Defendant:
JUDGE GRADY BLANCHARD, VETERANS CANTEEN SERVICES, GWENDOLYN BOVAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
