Cases 1 - 10 of 1,077
Melchor Limpin v. Robert McSeveney, et al
as 22-56059
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN
Defendant / Appellee:
ROBERT B.C. MCSEVENEY, Immigration Judge, JEH JOHNSON, former Secretary of U.S. DHS, KAMALA D. HARRIS, former Attorney General of California and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv06554
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Melchor Limpin v. Robert McSeveney, et al
as 20-55866
Defendant / Appellee:
ROBERT MCSEVENEY, Immigration Judge, KERRI CALCADOR, DHS attorney, COBIAN, ICE agent; immigration officer and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv01219
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Salgado v. Aitken et al
as 3:2020cv02319
Petitioner:
Armando Nunez Salgado
Respondent:
Warden, Loretta Lynch, Timothy S. Aitken and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Hernandez et al v. Barr et al
as 3:2019mc80145
Defendant:
James Janecka, Juan P. Osuna, Mike Kreuger and others
Plaintiff:
Cesar Matias and Xochitl Hernandez
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv06009
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv05138
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Zheng Lyu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Servcie, et al
as 2:2018cv05468
Defendant:
Kathy Baran, Nicholas Colucci, Jeh Johnson and others
Plaintiff:
Zheng Lyu
Ronald Boyajian v. United States Supreme Court
as 18-80066
:
In re: RONALD GERARD BOYAJIAN
Petitioner:
RONALD GERARD BOYAJIAN
Respondent:
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Real Party In Interest:
OM YENTIENG, SAR KHENG, ANG VONG VOTANA 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.
