Cases 31 - 40 of 322
Sampay v. Terrebonne Parish 32nd Judicial Court et al
as 2:2022cv01173
Plaintiff:
Paul Anthony Sampay
Defendant:
Terrebonne Parish 32nd Judicial Court, Randall Bethancourt, Jay Luke and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Paul Robledo v. Bautista, et al
as 22-15618
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL ANTHONY ROBLEDO
Defendant / Appellee:
BAUTISTA, First name unknown; Corrections Officer II, CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC, DEPUTY WARDEN RONALD ABBL and others
Moreno v. Perez-Pantoja
as 5:2022cv02267
Plaintiff:
Paul Anthony Moreno
Defendant:
I. Perez-Pantoja
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lynch v. Lynch et al
as 3:2022cv00455
Petitioner:
Ms. Paul Anthony Lynch
Respondent:
Jeff Lynch and Rob Bonta
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RENTAS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2022cv04084
Plaintiff:
PAUL ANTHONY RENTAS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
KORNEGAY v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2022cv02935
Plaintiff:
PAUL ANTHONY KORNEGAY
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
(PC) Thomas v. Ware et al
as 2:2022cv00177
Plaintiff:
Paul Thomas and Paul Anthony Thomas
Defendant:
Ware and Avila
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Riojas v. Department of the Army
as 22-50019
Petitioner / Appellant:
Paul Anthony Riojas
Respondent / Appellee:
Department of the Army and John E. Whitley, Secretary of the Army
Paul White v. Merrick Garland
as 21-2365
Petitioner:
PAUL ANTHONY WHITE
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Mathis v. Adkins
as 3:2021cv50429
Petitioner:
Paul Anthony Mathis
Respondent:
Kim Larson and Felicia Adkins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
