Cases 1 - 10 of 56
Rush v. Kijakazi
as 1:2023cv02929
Plaintiff:
Michelle R. Rush
Defendant:
Kilolo Kijakazi
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv00951
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Feaster v. Chambers-Smith et al
as 1:2022cv00313
Plaintiff:
Terrance J Feaster
Defendant:
Annette Chambers-Smith, Ronald T. Erdos, Cynthia Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
White v. Will County Adult Detention Facility, The et al
as 1:2022cv02534
Plaintiff:
Dan M. White
Defendant:
Will County Adult Detention Facility, The, Mike Kelley, J. Luna and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rahman R. Rushing v. Warden
as 2:2020cv07737
Respondent:
Warden
Petitioner:
Rahman R Rushing
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rahman R Rushing v. Cynthia Y. Tampkins et al
as 2:2020cv06513
Plaintiff:
Rahman R Rushing
Defendant:
State of California, Cynthia Y. Tampkins and Mona D. Houston
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rahman R Rushing v. State of California et al
as 5:2020cv01247
Defendant:
State of California, John Doe CC s, Cynthia Y Tamkins and others
Plaintiff:
Rahman R. Rushing
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barker et al v. Bates County Circuit Court et al
as 4:2018cv00861
Defendant:
Hugh C Jenkins, Kenneth R Rush, Ryan Reynolds and others
Plaintiff:
John J Sullivan, Jr and James S Barker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Theodore Rushing v. Charles Ryan, et al
as 18-15015
Petitioner - Appellant:
THEODORE R. RUSHING
Respondent - Appellee:
CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Ruben Lopez v. Blaine R. Rush et al
as 5:2016cv02205
Defendant:
Does and Blaine R Rush
Plaintiff:
Ruben Lopez
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.
