Cases 31 - 40 of 135
Emrit v. United States Naval Intelligence et al
as 1:2022cv02821
Plaintiff:
Ronald Satish Emrit
Defendant:
United States Naval Intelligence, Lloyd Austin and Pentagon/Department of Defense
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 bv Bivens Non-Prisoner
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-2066
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-2027
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-1899
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Alvarado et al v. Austin, III et al
as 1:2022cv00876
Plaintiff:
Israel alvarado, steven barfield, Walter Brobst and others
Defendant:
Lloyd Austin, III, Frank Kendall, Carlos Del Toro and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00043
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv02332
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00696
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Bond v. Kendall et al
as 8:2022cv01509
Petitioner:
Cody D. Bond
Respondent:
Frank Kendall, III, Lloyd J. Austin, III and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Brackney-Wheelock v. City of Charlottesville et al
as 3:2022cv00035
Defendant:
Charles Boyles, Latroy Durrette, City of Charlottesville and others
Plaintiff:
Rashall M. Brackney-Wheelock, Ph.D.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
