Cases 21 - 30 of 543
Parra-Cajas, et al. v. Garland
as 23-4245
Petitioner:
FRANKLIN LEUDAN PARRA-CAJAS, VALESKA KAORI PARRA-SANCHEZ and RUTH KATHERINE SANCHEZ-TRUJILLO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Leaming v. Smith et al
as 2:2023cv01951
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Wayne Leaming
Defendant:
Donny Smith V.A. Puget Sound Chief of Police doing business as Lt. J. Doe, et ux., VA Police, Michael J Franklin, Thomas Bundt (Successor) Fiduciary, et ux. doing business as VA Puget Sound VA Executive Director and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Cristobal Francisco, et al. v. Garland
as 23-3691
Petitioner:
RAQUEL CRISTOBAL FRANCISCO and FRANKLIN ALFREDO MIGUEL CRISTOBAL
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Franklin v. United States of America
as 23-3511
Petitioner / Appellant:
ERIC QUINN FRANKLIN
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Bunch v. National Association of Preferred Providers et al
as 2:2023cv02365
Defendant:
Harold L Brock, Jr., National Association of Preferred Providers, Triada Assurance Holdings LLC a Texas limited liability company doing business as Salvasen Health and others
Plaintiff:
Lynn M Bunch
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Franklin v. Aguirre
as 23-1881
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GREGORY FRANKLIN
Defendant / Appellee:
SERGEANT R. AGUIRRE
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv01577
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Jesse Swartz, Jr. v. USDC-CASF
as 23-70140
Not Classified By Court:
In re: JESSE FRANKLIN SWARTZ, Jr. and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
JESSE FRANKLIN SWARTZ, Jr.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
United States of America v. Swartz
as 23-1159
Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Appellant:
JESSE FRANKLIN SWARTZ
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.
