Cases 61 - 70 of 141
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv04990
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 pr
Taebel v. US DOJ
as 1:2018cv00329
Plaintiff:
Mitch Taebel
Defendant:
US DOJ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gill v. Delaney, Esquire et al
as 1:2018cv02437
Defendant:
DOJ, USA Paul E. Budlow, Esquire, USA Julie D. Podlesni, Esquire and others
Plaintiff:
Raymond Edward Gill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Sarath v. DOJ et al
as 1:2018cv00850
Petitioner:
Seua Sarath
Respondent:
DHS, United States and DOJ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
HARRIOT v. DOJ et al
as 1:2018cv01587
Defendant:
IRENE JOSEY, RODNEY PRITCHARD, SCARLET A. WILSON and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Francis Grandinetti, II v. CoreCivic, et al
as 18-16124
Petitioner - Appellant:
FRANCIS ANTHONY GRANDINETTI II
Respondent - Appellee:
CORECIVIC, CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, in Nashville, TN, outgoing federal contractor(s), SAGUARO CORRECTIONAL CENTER, (dba) in Arizona, a federal-detention "private jail" for Hawaii, CSC, BRG, Wakenhut (Hilo), et al., previous contractors for Hawaii and U.S. (class) and others
Palmer v. HPD et al
as 4:2018cv01825
Plaintiff:
John Palmer
Defendant:
HPD, City of Houston, Harris County District Attorney's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Todd v. State of Washington Attorney General's Office et al
as 2:2018cv00720
Plaintiff:
Jerome Eugene Todd
Defendant:
State of Washington Attorney General's Office, Ye Ting Woo, James Robart and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. ICE et al
as 6:2018cv00650
Plaintiff:
Vaughn Johnson
Defendant:
ICE, DOS, DOJ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GILL v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK et al
as 2:2018cv01699
Plaintiff:
RAYMOND EDWARD GILL
Defendant:
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON and DOJ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
