Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Thomas-King et al v. Google LLC
as 4:2026cv04439
Plaintiff:
Marvin Thomas-King, James Arcano, Thomas Cattell and others
Defendant:
Google LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Carr, et al. v. Tewalt, et al.
as 26-2328
Plaintiff:
JODY CARR, DOES, Double Celled Close Custody Inmates of IDOC, RANDALL ERICKSON and others
Defendant:
Director IDOC JOSH TEWALT, CHAD PAGE, AMANDA GENTRY and others
Williams v. Campbell, et al.
as 26-1434
Plaintiff:
KENT WILLIAMS
Defendant:
WALTER CAMPBELL, ATENCIO, TEWALT and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2026cv00737
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Gibney v. Slaughter
as 4:2026cv00015
Petitioner:
Chad Michael Gibney
Respondent:
Jesse Slaughter
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Williams v. Campbell, et al.
as 1:2026cv00080
Plaintiff:
Kent Williams
Defendant:
Dr. Walter Campbell, Director Atencio, Director Tewalt and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Campbell, et al.
as 1:2026cv00081
Plaintiff:
Kent Williams
Defendant:
Dr. Walter Campbell, Director Atencio, Director Tewalt and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Campbell, et al.
as 1:2026cv00078
Plaintiff:
Kent Williams
Defendant:
Dr. Walter Campbell, Director Atencio, Director Tewalt and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ryan Anderson v. US
as 26-1058
Plaintiff:
RYAN ANDERSON
Defendant:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA and others
United States of America v. Gibney
as 26-171
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
CHAD MICHAEL GIBNEY
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.
