Cases 1 - 10 of 26
Swenson v. Yee et al
as 1:2023cv10259
Plaintiff:
Carol Swenson
Defendant:
Phillip Yee, Matt Donoghue, Paul Zaniboni and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Licari v. Hughes et al
as 1:2021cv04034
Plaintiff:
Lindsey Licari
Defendant:
Rena Hughes, Mary Kay Holthus, Elizabeth Gonzalez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Licari v. Ford et al.
as 3:2021cv00184
Defendant:
Mosowitz, Lipson Neilson LTD, Mark Denton and others
Plaintiff:
Lindsey Licari
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Liviz v. Supreme Court of the United State of America, et al
as 1:2018cv12620
Defendant:
Michigan Supreme Court, Louisiana Supreme Court, Kansas Supreme Court and others
Plaintiff:
Chief Jurist ilya Liviz
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
John Arpino v. Michael Cherry, et al
as 18-16020
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN FRANCIS ARPINO
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL A. CHERRY, MARK GIBBONS, JAMES W. HARDESTY and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 18-15918
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
John Arpino v. USDC-NVR
as 18-71228
:
In re: JOHN FRANCIS ARPINO
Petitioner:
JOHN FRANCIS ARPINO, AKA Johnny Bullets
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, RENO
Real Party In Interest:
MICHAEL A. CHERRY, MARK GIBBONS, JAMES W. HARDESTY and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv00162
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
John Arpino v. Michael Cherry, et al
as 18-15616
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN FRANCIS ARPINO
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL A. CHERRY, MARK GIBBONS, JAMES W. HARDESTY and others
Arpino v. Cherry et al
as 2:2017cv02266
Petitioner:
John Francis Arpino
Respondent:
Judge Janet J Berry, Chief Justice Michael A Cherry, Nathan Edwards and others
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
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.
