Cases 1 - 10 of 2,308
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1191
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1192
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2024cv60747
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-5431
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv21687
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0551 Administrative Procedure Act
Anesh Gupta v. Attorney General, et al
as 24-11296
Plaintiff:
ANESH GUPTA
Defendant:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DIRECTOR, CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv01512
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv01460
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Martinez Jimenez v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
as 24-2491
Petitioner:
VICTOR MARTINEZ JIMENEZ
Respondent:
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Current or Acting Director; Current or Acting Field Office Director, of San Francisco Field Office, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Current or Acting Secretary, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Current or Acting and others
Egu Uduka v. United States of America, et al.
as 24-2468
Plaintiff:
PRINCE EGU UDUKA
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 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.
