Cases 1 - 10 of 2,842
Lockett v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2024cv01567
Plaintiff:
Keith Lockett
Defendant:
3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc.
Lockett v. O'Malley
as 3:2024cv00716
Plaintiff:
Mark Lockett
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Lockett et al v. Jenkins Correctional Center
as 6:2024cv00019
Plaintiff:
Cameron Lockett and Carlos White
Defendant:
Jenkins Correctional Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lockett v. Matteson
as 5:2024cv02189
Petitioner:
Jamie Lockett
Respondent:
Giselle Matteson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fredric Lockett v. 3M Company, The et al
as 2:2024cv01516
Defendant:
3M Company, The, Du Pont De Nemours Inc, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and others
Plaintiff:
Fredric Lockett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Lockett v. Clark et al
as 1:2024cv00158
Plaintiff:
Tyree Lockett
Defendant:
Sgt. Clark, Lt. Ngduea, Sgt. Slayton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gary Carter, Jr. v. Effingham County Sheriff's Department, et al
as 24-10842
Plaintiff:
GARY ANTHONY CARTER, JR.
Defendant:
EFFINGHAM COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, WINSTON MOCK, WELLPATH and others
Lockett v. The United States of America et al
as 5:2024cv00052
Petitioner:
Sicory Lockett
Respondent:
The United States of America, The Department of Defense and The Department of Veteran Affairs
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00594
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (religion)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00688
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
