Cases 1 - 10 of 93
Henderson v. O'Malley
as 1:2024cv03055
Plaintiff:
Jonah Myckel Henderson
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Interested Party:
SSA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Opoku v. City of Tumwater et al
as 3:2024cv05167
Plaintiff:
Sylvester Opoku
Defendant:
City of Tumwater, Tumwater Police Department, Jon Weiks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv06186
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01957
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Moore v. Henderson et al
as 4:2023cv05142
Plaintiff:
Kenneth J Moore
Defendant:
Richard L Henderson, MD, Timothy G Caudill, MD, Sir Reyes, PA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Henderson v. Kijakazi
as 2:2022cv00323
Plaintiff:
Ashleah N Henderson
Defendant:
Kilolo Kijakazi
Interested Party:
SSA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Foss v. King County et al
as 2:2022cv01728
Plaintiff:
MAGDALENA KRISTIN FOSS and Magdalena K Foss
Defendant:
King County, City of Monroe, Paul Henderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Tapia v. NaphCare Inc et al
as 2:2022cv01141
Plaintiff:
Javier Tapia
Defendant:
NaphCare Inc, Pierce County, Paul Pastor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Smith et al v. NaphCare Inc et al
as 3:2022cv05069
Plaintiff:
Michael T Smith and Michael B Smith
Defendant:
NaphCare Inc, Kitsap County, Gary Simpson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rapp et al v. NaphCare Inc et al
as 3:2021cv05800
Plaintiff:
John Rapp, Megan F Wabnitz and Judith Rapp
Defendant:
NaphCare Inc, Kitsap County, Gary Simpson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
