Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Ali Shahroki v. James Hardesty
as 22-16441
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ALI SHAHROKI
Defendant / Appellee:
JAMES W. HARDESTY
Szymborski v. The State of Nevada et al
as 2:2022cv01164
Plaintiff:
Lee Edward Szymborski
Defendant:
The State of Nevada, The State of Nevada Department of Administration, Governor Stephen F. Sisolak and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Shahroki v. Hardesty
as 2:2021cv02251
Plaintiff:
Ali Shahroki
Defendant:
James W. Hardesty
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
John Arpino v. Michael Cherry, et al
as 18-16020
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN FRANCIS ARPINO
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL A. CHERRY, MARK GIBBONS, JAMES W. HARDESTY and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 18-15918
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
John Arpino v. USDC-NVR
as 18-71228
:
In re: JOHN FRANCIS ARPINO
Petitioner:
JOHN FRANCIS ARPINO, AKA Johnny Bullets
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, RENO
Real Party In Interest:
MICHAEL A. CHERRY, MARK GIBBONS, JAMES W. HARDESTY and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv00162
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
John Arpino v. Michael Cherry, et al
as 18-15616
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN FRANCIS ARPINO
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL A. CHERRY, MARK GIBBONS, JAMES W. HARDESTY and others
Arpino v. Cherry et al
as 2:2017cv02266
Petitioner:
John Francis Arpino
Respondent:
Judge Janet J Berry, Chief Justice Michael A Cherry, Nathan Edwards and others
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Arpino v. Cherry et al
as 3:2017cv00527
Petitioner:
John Francis Arpino
Respondent:
Judge Janet J Berry, Chief Justice Michael A Cherry, Nathan Edwards and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
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.
