Cases 1 - 10 of 48
Tuvell v. Haley, et al
as 26-1961
Plaintiff:
WALTER EUGENE TUVELL, JR., PHD
Defendant:
CHRISTOPHER HALEY, (Husband/Father), AMANDA HALEY, (Wife/Stepmother), AUTUMN HALEY, ((Step)-Daughter) and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv25948
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2026cv02267
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing
Tuvell v. Haley et al
as 1:2026cv12088
Plaintiff:
Pro se Litigant Walter Tuvell
Defendant:
Maureen Mulligan, Martha Brennan, James Budreau and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Antwan Richardson v. Jon Altemus, et al
as 26-1623
Plaintiff:
ANTWAN L. RICHARDSON
Defendant:
JON ALTEMUS, BALLIER, BEAN and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv22005
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jermaine Jackson v. Neyman, et al
as 26-1542
Plaintiff:
JERMAINE MICHAEL JACKSON
Defendant:
SERGEANT NEYMAN, UNIT MANAGER J. MCCAULLEY and LIEUTENANT S. R. WOOMER
Moss, et al v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al
as 26-1073
Plaintiff:
MIRIAM MOSS and MATTHEW COOMBES
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL, MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRIAL COURT and others
Coombes et al v. The State of Massachusetts et al
as 1:2025cv13231
Plaintiff:
Matthew Coombes and Miriam Moss
Defendant:
The State of Massachusetts, The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, The Massachusetts Department of Trial Courts and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2025cv01173
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing
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.
