Cases 1 - 10 of 1,595
Saxton v. Perry
as 4:2024cv00131
Plaintiff:
Terry Saxton
Defendant:
J. Kevin Perry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Matchen v. Araya
as 1:2024cv02162
Plaintiff:
Kevin Lamar Matchen
Defendant:
Rodrigo Araya
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McKenna v. Conway
as 1:2024cv02161
Plaintiff:
Kevin H. McKenna
Defendant:
Matthew R. Conway
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02022
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
HBA Hollywood Beauty Academy, LLC et al v. Lam et al
as 1:2024cv01952
Defendant:
Thuy Ai Chanh Lam, Kathy Lam, DANIEL NHU NGUYEN and others
Plaintiff:
HBA HOLLYWOOD BEAUTY ACADEMY, LLC, FAB FLORIDA ACADEMY OF BEAUTY, LLC, Ronald King-Wong Kwok and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Calhoun v. Lamb et al
as 1:2024cv01670
Plaintiff:
Sheryl Ansley Calhoun
Defendant:
Almatin Lamb, Jamal Mustafa, Gregory Tillman and others
Bennett v. Perry et al
as 1:2024cv00046
Plaintiff:
Danny Bennett
Defendant:
J. Kevin Perry, Tyrone Oliver, C. Anderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Riley v. Clayton County, Georgia et al
as 1:2024cv01567
Plaintiff:
Cordero Riley
Defendant:
Clayton County, Georgia, Jeffrey Turner, Alieka Anderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bennett v. Perry et al
as 1:2024cv01509
Plaintiff:
Danny Bennett
Defendant:
J. Kevin Perry, Tyrone Oliver, C. Anderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00042
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
