Cases 31 - 40 of 78
FLORENDO-ONG v. IL-USA et al
as 1:2022cv01596
Plaintiff:
TRISTAN FLORENDO-ONG
Defendant:
116th/117th US CONGRESSIONAL 535 MEMBERS, 177 MEMBERS IL G.A., CECILIA ABUNDIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
PAGE v. BIDEN et al
as 1:2022cv01416
Plaintiff:
JOHN H. PAGE
Defendant:
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. and GINA M. RAIMONDO
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
DOE v. BIDEN et al
as 1:2022mc00034
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE
Defendant:
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III and CHRISTINE ELIZABETH WORMUTH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00791
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv03356
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
FUENTES v. BIDEN et al
as 1:2021cv03106
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS FUENTES
Defendant:
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., MERRICK GARLAND, CHRISTOPHER WRAY and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
PAYNE v. BIDEN et al
as 1:2021cv03077
Plaintiff:
JASON PAYNE
Defendant:
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, KIRAN AHUJA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
AL-HAWSAWI v. BIDEN et al
as 1:2021cv02907
Petitioner:
MUSTAFA AHMED ADAM AL-HAWSAWI
Respondent:
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III and LANCE A. OKAMURA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
MCCRAY v. BIDEN
as 1:2021cv02882
Plaintiff:
RONALD C. MCCRAY, JR.
Defendant:
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
CHURCH et al v. BIDEN et al
as 1:2021cv02815
Plaintiff:
STEVEN CHURCH, LESLEY CHURCH, ALMA GONZALEZ and others
Defendant:
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, ANTONY J. BLINKEN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
