Cases 1 - 10 of 100
United States of America v. Davis
as 26-5684
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
THOMAS MICHAEL DAVIS
Cunningham v. Taylor et al
as 4:2026cv07294
Plaintiff:
Gregory Demon Cunningham
Defendant:
Gregory Taylor, Michael Skinner, Palmer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
USA v. Michael Davis
as 26-12849
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Claimant:
MICHAEL DAVIS
Defendant:
$101,560.00, MORE OR LESS, IN U.S. CURRENCY
Ortiz v. Hain et al
as 1:2026cv08749
Plaintiff:
Jose Luis Ortiz
Defendant:
Ronald Hain, Adan Bochnak, Francisco Ibarra and others
:
Service List
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sedek v. Baker-Webb et al
as 2:2026cv00782
Plaintiff:
Amare Sedek and Steven A. Huggins
Defendant:
Ms. Baker-Webb, Blaire Smith, Michael Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAVIS v. SEVIER
as 1:2026cv01393
Petitioner:
MICHAEL DAVIS
Respondent:
MARK SEVIER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ortiz v. Pritzker et al
as 3:2026cv03212
Plaintiff:
Jose L Ortiz
Defendant:
J B Pritzker, Latoya Hughes, Tiona Farrington and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lettieri v. Huggins, et al
as 26-1730
Plaintiff:
DAVID CARMINE LETTIERI
Defendant:
MAEVE EILEEN HUGGINS, MAY 23, 2023 EVENING CORRECTION OFFICER, D. WIGGINS and others
Davis v. Dillon Companies, LLC et al
as 1:2026cv02686
Plaintiff:
Michael Davis
Defendant:
Dillon Companies LLC a Kansas corporation doing business as King Soopers, Universal Services of America a California corporation doing business as Allied Universal and Thomas Plaza
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Davis v. Vecchio et al
as 1:2026cv07018
Plaintiff:
Michael Davis
Defendant:
Joseph Vecchio, Michael Donnelly and City of Chicago
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
