Cases 1 - 10 of 49
(HC) Bennett v. Yolo County Superior Court
as 2:2023cv02885
Petitioner:
David Hill Bennett and David Bennett
Respondent:
Yolo County Superior Court
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McKeown v. Christopher A. Wray et al
as 1:2023cv05489
Plaintiff:
Ryan P. McKeown
Defendant:
Christopher A. Wray, Joe Biden, David Hill and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hill v. Young et al
as 1:2023cv00230
Plaintiff:
David Hill
Defendant:
FNU Young, FNU Cargill and FNU Rashall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Leguire v. City of Findlay et al
as 3:2023cv01123
Plaintiff:
Matthias Leguire
Defendant:
The City of Findlay, Mayor Christina Muryn, Donald Rasmussen and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Hill v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al
as 7:2022cv00336
Petitioner:
Brian David Hill
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Virginia and Glen Andrew Hall, Esq.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
US v. Brian Hill
as 22-6501
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
BRIAN DAVID HILL
David Hill v. Riverside County
as 5:2022cv00253
Plaintiff:
David Hill and David S. Hill
Defendant:
Riverside County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
HILL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2022cv00074
Petitioner:
BRIAN DAVID HILL
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Neal v. State of North Carolina
as 5:2022ct03042
Plaintiff:
Christopher Neal
Defendant:
State of North Carolina, Dennis Daniels, Antonia Watson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
David Hill v. Paul McNulty
as 22-6083
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID HILL
Defendant / Appellee:
PAUL J. MCNULTY, U.S. District Attorney, ROBERT SPENCER, Asst. U.S. Attorney, KAREN NESTER, FBI Agent 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.
