Cases 1 - 10 of 100
MINGO v. STATE OF FLORIDA
as 1:2026cv00211
Petitioner:
LARON A MINGO
Respondent:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv01902
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Mingo v. Dzurenda et al
as 3:2026cv00374
Plaintiff:
John E. Mingo
Defendant:
J. Dzurenda, N. Breitenbach, D. Colliv and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Every v. City of Chattanooga et al
as 1:2026cv00126
Plaintiff:
Constance M Every
Defendant:
City of Chattanooga, LT. Les Stover, Officer Shackleford and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv01205
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
BORETSKY v. KUHN et al
as 1:2026cv03798
Plaintiff:
BORIS BORETSKY
Defendant:
VICTORIA L. KUHN, NJDOC COMMISSIONER, JEFFREY CROTHERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MINGO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
as 1:2026cv03520
Plaintiff:
DARREN T. MINGO
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv01628
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-2e Job Discrimination (Unlawful Employment Practices)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv00106
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1991
Mingo v. Dezurenda et al
as 3:2026cv00087
Plaintiff:
Johnathan E. Mingo
Defendant:
James Dezurenda, Nathanah Breitenbach, Daniel Collier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
