Cases 1 - 10 of 100
WALKER v. POPE et al
as 5:2026cv00132
Plaintiff:
DAVID RYAN WALKER
Defendant:
UNIT MANAGER POPE, SGT JORDAN, WARDEN PEOPLES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Kansas, State of et al
as 5:2026cv03032
Plaintiff:
Victor Santiago-Rodriguez
Defendant:
Kansas, State of, Krista Louise Blaisdell and David Ryan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. David Ryan Floyd et al
as 2:2025cv10947
Plaintiff:
Innovative Sports Management, Inc. doing business as Integrated Sports Media
Defendant:
David Ryan Floyd individually doing business as 33 Taps DTLA and Big 2024, LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 521 Violations of Cable Communications Act of 1984
Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. David Ryan Floyd et al
as 2:2025cv10923
Plaintiff:
Innovative Sports Management, Inc. doing business as Integrated Sports Media
Defendant:
David Ryan Floyd doing business as Stache also known as 33 Taps West Hollywood, John Abram Bakalar individually doing business as Stache also known as 33 Taps West Hollywood, George Thomas Dave doing business as Stache also known as 33 Taps West Hollywood and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1934
IN RE: DAVID RYAN NUSSEY
as 8:2025cv12873
Respondent:
DAVID RYAN NUSSEY
Cause Of Action: Attorney Discipline
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2025cv04556
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-2e Job Discrimination (Unlawful Employment Practices)
BRADFIELD v. TY et al
as 1:2025cv00754
Plaintiff:
DAVID RYAN BRADFIELD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
KAUFFMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2025cv00100
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, LAURELL HARRY, DORINA VARNER and others
Plaintiff:
David Ryan Kauffman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr 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.
