Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2026cv07190
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Allen Wiley, III v. Shawn McKenzie, et al
as 26-5701
Plaintiff:
ALLEN WILEY, III
Defendant:
SHAWN MCKENZIE, DAVID VANCE, RYAN MULLINS and others
HATFIELD v. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON et al
as 2:2026cv01552
Plaintiff:
JUSTIN M. HATFIELD
Defendant:
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF BEAVER, BEAVER COUNTY JAIL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Kuspa v. Deangelis et al
as 4:2026cv00946
Plaintiff:
Kaeleff Thomas Kuspa
Defendant:
Lori L. Deangelis, Beth A. Poulos, Kay Ellyn Brady-Hatfield and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Sadeghi v. Adams County, Colorado, et al
as 26-1304
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL KOURUSH SADEGHI
Defendant:
ADAMS COUNTY, COLORADO, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ADAMS COUNTY COLORADO, CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO and others
HATFIELD v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER et al
as 5:2026cv05235
Petitioner:
RICHARD J. HATFIELD
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 26-4732
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Arhim #170593 v. Hatfield et al
as 1:2026cv02119
Plaintiff:
George Arhim #170593
Defendant:
Unknown Hatfield, Unknown Drury, Brandon Freeman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv00754
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wood v. State Habeas Counsel, et al.
as 26-4519
Petitioner:
DANIELLE JEANETTE WOOD
Respondent:
STATE HABEAS COUNSEL, AUSTIN KNUDSEN, Attorney Geneal for the State of Montana, JANIA HATFIELD, Sanders County Attorney 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.
