Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Rakchi et al v. The City of New York et al
as 1:2024cv01312
Plaintiff:
Mohammed Salah Rakchi and Nadjet Tchenar
Defendant:
The City of New York, John and Jane Does 1-10, U-Haul International, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv02401
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
USA v. Mohamed Salah
as 22-50319
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
MOHAMED SALAH
Mohamed Emad v. Dodge County, et al
as 22-1876
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MOHAMED SALAH MOHAMED A EMAD
Defendant / Appellee:
DODGE COUNTY, DALE J. SCHMIDT, ANTHONY BRUGGER and others
United States v. Mohamed Hussein
as 21-3656
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Mohamed Salah Hussein, also known as Cheese
Mohamed v. Garland
as 20-3681
Petitioner:
MOHAMED SALAH NASR MOHAMED
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mohamed Salah Abdallah v. William Barr
as 20-70263
Respondent:
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General
Petitioner:
MOHAMED SALAH ABDALLAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $36,000 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY SEIZED AT LOGAN AIRPORT
as 1:2019cv11924
Defendant:
$36,000 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY SEIZED AT LOGAN AIRPORT
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Claimant:
Mohammed Salah
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881
Ben Mohamed Salah v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security et al
as 6:2019cv00061
Defendant:
Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Laura B. Zuchowski, L. Francis Cissna and others
Plaintiff:
Ayman Ben Mohamed Salah
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Omer v. Whitaker et al
as 1:2018cv07926
Respondent:
KIRSTJEN M NIELSEN, L. FRANCIS CISSNA, MATTHEW G. WHITAKER and others
Petitioner:
MOHAMED SALAH OMER
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0701
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.
