Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv00093
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment
CHAPMAN v. MEHTA et al
as 1:2017cv02812
Plaintiff:
LAMAR CHRISTOPHER CHAPMAN, III
Defendant:
AMIT PRIYAVADAN MEHTA, BARRY SOETORO, UNITED STATES SENATE, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv03446
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Banks et al v. FCI Fort Dix Food Services Department West Compound et al
as 1:2011cv01095
Plaintiff:
Frederick Banks and Damian Black Fox
Defendant:
FCI Fort Dix Food Services Department West Compound, Dougless Williams, Collins and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Frederick Banks v. A. Whitaker, et al
as 11-2125
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FREDERICK H. BANKS
Defendant - Appellee:
A WHITAKER, Teacher, J TENOR, Education Supervisor, B STEELE, Teacher and others
Riches v. FAMM et al
as 3:2009cv00785
Petitioner:
Jonathan Lee Riches
Respondent:
FAMM, Julie Stewart, Mary Price and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Dumonde, Daniel v. Cong US, et al
as 08-5008
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Daniel Lafitte Dumonde
Defendant - Appellee:
Congress of the United States, Artur Davis, Rep., Darlene Drew, Warden and others
DUMONDE v. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES et al
as 1:2007cv02123
Plaintiff:
DANIEL LAFITTE DUMONDE
Defendant:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, ARTUR DAVIS, DARLENE DREW and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Becker v. Hudson et al
as 2:2007cv00224
Petitioner:
Jan F. Becker
Respondent:
Hudson, Patrick J. Leahy, G. W. Bush and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
