Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Jesse Olivar v. John Potter
as 19-16204
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JESSE OLIVAR
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General
Perales v. United States of America et al
as 6:2012cv00520
Defendant:
G. Auerbach, Brian Beckwith, Roy Blunt and others
Plaintiff:
Azael Dythian Perales
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights
Perales v. Obama et al
as 3:2011cv00182
Defendant:
Richard Bruce Cheney, Peter Hoekstra, Christopher Samuel Bond and others
Plaintiff:
Azael Dythian Perales
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Khalilah R. Beard v. John E. Potter
as 2:2008cv07827
Plaintiff:
Khaliah R. Beard
Defendant:
John E. Potter
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Kurt Klassen v. John E. Potter
as 2:2008cv04265
:
Defendant:
John E. Potter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Rogers v. Potter
as 4:2008cv02897
Plaintiff:
Fred Rogers
Defendant:
John E. Potter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Srikanth Tangirala v. USDCSAC
as 10-70152
:
In re: SRIKANTH TANGIRALA
Petitioner:
SRIKANTH TANGIRALA
Respondent:
USDC, SACRAMENTO
Real Party In Interest:
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, OFFICE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION and others
Conception Azmitia v. John E. Potter et al
as 2:2009cv00556
Attorney Settlement Officer:
Attorney Settlement Officer
Plaintiff:
Concepcion Azmitia
Defendant:
DOES, John E. Potter and Marina Santeramo
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act)
Michael E. Garrett v. John E. Potter
as 2:2009cv07674
Plaintiff:
Michael E. Garrett
Defendant:
John E. Potter
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Forma Pauperis Denial
Dan Harris v. John E Potter
as 2:2009cv07478
Plaintiff:
Dan Harris
Defendant:
John E Potter
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act)
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.
