Cases 21 - 30 of 425
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv03595
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv03422
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
SHEPHARD v. SMITH et al
as 1:2022cv03375
Plaintiff:
ALONZO D. SHEPHARD
Defendant:
ANNETTE CHAMBERS SMITH, PRICE, BLACK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BARRETT v. BIDEN et al
as 1:2022cv02823
Plaintiff:
JEFFREY P. BARRETT
Defendant:
JOSEPH BIDEN, KAMALA HARRIS, BARACK OBAMA and others
Claimant:
NANCY PELOSI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02753
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
LASSITER v. ADERHOLT et al
as 1:2022cv02675
Plaintiff:
DUSKIN CORBAN LASSITER
Defendant:
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, RICK ALLEN, JODEY ARRINGTON and others
Debtor:
RANDY WEBER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
NICHOLS v. GARLAND et al
as 1:2022cv02356
Petitioner:
Ryan Taylor Nichols
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND and Michelle Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02182
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
GARCIA v. RUBIN GROUP LLC et al
as 1:2022cv02119
Plaintiff:
KARL GARCIA
Defendant:
RUBIN GROUP LLC, 819D LLC, 819 CAPITAL LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1452 R&R re motions to remand (non-core)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02067
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
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.
