Cases 21 - 30 of 20,685
US v. Antoine Cespedes
as 24-4247
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ANTOINE DOMINICK CESPEDES, a/k/a Ghost, a/k/a Lul Twon
Saadiq Long v. Merrick Garland
as 24-1403
Plaintiff:
SAADIQ LONG, a/k/a Paul Anderson, JUANGJAN DAVES and LESHAUNA DAVES
Defendant:
WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General of the United States, in his official capacity only, CHRISTOPHER ASHER WRAY, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in his official capacity only, CHARLES H. KABLE, IV, Director of the Terrorism Screening Center, in his official capacity only and others
Christopher Henry v. Nurse Lydia
as 24-6438
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT HENRY, a/k/a Chicken Man
Defendant:
NURSE LYDIA, NURSE TAMARA, NURSE BRITTANY and others
US v. Nathaniel Mitchell
as 24-6437
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
NATHANIEL TYREE MITCHELL, a/k/a Savage
Mogan v. Altimmune, Inc. et al
as 8:2024cv01315
Plaintiff:
Joseph Mogan
Defendant:
Altimmune, Inc., Vipin K. Garg, Richard I. Eisenstadt and others
Hyatt v. Vidal
as 1:2024cv00755
Plaintiff:
Gilbert P. Hyatt
Defendant:
Katherine K. Vidal
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145 Patent Non-Infringement- Patent Applicant is Dissatisfied with PTO Decision
Watson v. Hamilton et al
as 7:2024cv00298
Plaintiff:
Kevin A. Watson
Defendant:
M. Hamilton, K.D. Ramey, Mr. White and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Boice et al v. K. Petroleum, Inc.
as 1:2024cv00051
Plaintiff:
Richard Boice and Sandra Boice
Defendant:
K. Petroleum, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Breach of Contract
US v. Tevin Glover
as 24-4244
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
TEVIN JAWAUN GLOVER, a/k/a Glizzy
Tolliver v. Barker et al.
as 1:2024cv00231
Plaintiff:
Hiram Tolliver
Defendant:
D. R. Barker, K. L. Ross, John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner 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.
