Cases 1 - 10 of 49
Davis v. Federal Express Corporation
as 3:2026cv06060
Plaintiff:
Dwayne Davis
Defendant:
Federal Express Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv00320
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination
Donelson v. City of Chicago et al
as 1:2026cv05962
Plaintiff:
Anthony Donelson
Defendant:
City of Chicago, Michael Adams, Luke Daly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Davis v. Carbofix Orthopedics Ltd. et al
as 4:2026cv03079
Plaintiff:
Dwayne Davis
Defendant:
Carbofix Orthopedics Ltd. and Carbofix Orthopedics, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
Davis v. St. Bernard Parish Prison
as 2:2025cv02393
Plaintiff:
Dwayne Davis
Defendant:
St. Bernard Parish Prison
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Reginal Davis v. Kurt Kramer, et al
as 25-2566
Plaintiff:
REGINAL LEE DAVIS
Defendant:
KURT KRAMER, KELLY TESTA, ROMAN EMPIRE PEER STATES and others
Davis v. State of Ohio et al.
as 1:2025cv01017
Plaintiff:
Dwayne Davis
Defendant:
State of Ohio, ODRC, OAPA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Davis v. Clark et al
as 1:2025cv00229
Plaintiff:
Keenan Dwayne Davis
Defendant:
Ken Clark, J. Oehlert, M. Romero and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
In Re Reginal Lee Davis
as 1:2024cv09951
Defendant:
TITLES INSTITUTIONS PRISONS, KELLY TESTA, JUDGE NOEL L. HILLMAN and others
Plaintiff:
KING REGINAL LEE DAVIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davis v. Ensign Services
as 3:2024cv02164
Plaintiff:
Joshua Dwayne Davis
Defendant:
Ensign Services doing business as Legend Oaks Healthcare
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
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.
