Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Clemons v. Keck, et al
as 26-5150
Defendant:
CODY LAWRENCE, Tulsa Police Office #2932, MONROE NICHOLS, Mayor of City of Tulsa and SPENCER E. KECK, Tulsa Police Officer #2930
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER L. CLEMONS, AKA Lloyd Christopher Clemons
Ayala v. Herrington et al
as 4:2026cv01208
Defendant:
Tim Nichols, Jose E Escamilla and John Herrington
Plaintiff:
Adam Ayala
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Rivera v. CIR
as 26-60991
Respondent:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Petitioner:
Ashley Nichole Rivera
Nichols #163936 v. Michigan Department of Corrections Parole Board et al
as 1:2026cv03139
Defendant:
Paula Johnson, Ravon Alford, Colin Riehl and others
Plaintiff:
Thomas James Nichols #163936
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Frantom v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 3:2026cv00406
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff:
Nichole Frantom
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Ragan v. St Joseph County Jail et al
as 3:2026cv01607
Defendant:
Andrew Finn, Bradley Moore and St Joseph County Jail
Plaintiff:
Savannah Nichole Ragan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NICHOLS v. KROGER TEXAS L.P. et al
as 3:2026cv03806
Defendant:
JOHN DOE and KROGER TEXAS L.P.
Plaintiff:
CHERIE K. NICHOLS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
NICHOLS v. STATE OF ARKANSAS et al
as 5:2026cv05308
Defendant:
Wal-Mart and State of Arkansas
Plaintiff:
Johnny Lee Nichols
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ebeid v. Greene et al
as 6:2026cv00394
Defendant:
Zania Bin Laddin, Omar Bin Laddina, Lenna Khadr and others
Plaintiff:
Gail Khalil Ebeid
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2026cv00241
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
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.
