Cases 1 - 10 of 80
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv04552
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Det
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2026cv04963
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 26-1198
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv02086
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv02087
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv00782
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in - Habeas Corpus: INS
Ruiz v. Akshar
as 9:2025cv00995
Plaintiff:
Luis Ruiz
Defendant:
Frederick Akshar, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
La Carniceria Meat Market Group v. Carniceria Prime Meat Market LLC et al
as 2:2025cv04018
Plaintiff:
La Carniceria Meat Market Group
Defendant:
Carniceria Prime Meat Market LLC, Branco Ramirez, Reynaldo Ponce and others
Counter-Claimant:
Branco Ramirez, Carniceria Prime Meat Market LLC and Reynaldo Ponce
Counter-Defendant:
Jose Luis Ruiz-Lopez, Noto LLC a/k/a La Carniceria Meat Market, Nahual LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement
Ruiz-Lopez v. Bondi
as 25-60009
Respondent:
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, James R. McHenry III, Acting U.S. Attorney General and Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General
Petitioner:
Jorge Luis Ruiz-Lopez
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.
