Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Palmeira v. CIT Bank, N.A.; et. al.
as 1:2017cv00275
Plaintiff:
Auralee J. Palmeira and Adele Palmeira-Shinn
Defendant:
CIT Bank, N.A. , Kalei B. Colridge , Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and others
Cross_claimant:
Kalei B. Colridge
Cross_defendant:
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and CIT Bank, N.A.
Counter_claimant:
Kalei B. Colridge
Counter_defendant:
Auralee J. Palmeira and Adele Palmeira-Shinn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jones v. Shinn
as 1:2015cv00486
Plaintiff:
Opherro Gary Jones
Defendant:
Shinn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Shinn et al
as 1:2014cv00231
Plaintiff:
Opherro G. Jones
Defendant:
Shinn, Ackley, Kitchen Staff - FDC Honolulu and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shinn v. EWM Enterprises, LP et al
as 1:2014cv00208
Plaintiff:
David Shinn
Defendant:
EWM Enterprises, LP, EWM Investments, LLC., Steven S.C. Lim and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Dominguez v. United States Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2014cv00202
Plaintiff:
Walter Dominguez
Defendant:
United States Bureau of Prisons, Federal Detention Center - Honolulu, David Shinn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Blankenship v. Shinn et al
as 1:2014cv00168
Plaintiff:
Mark A. Blankenship
Defendant:
D. Shinn, Mr. Shelko and John Does 1-10
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Christie v. Shinn
as 1:2013cv00364
Petitioner:
Roger Christie
Respondent:
David Shinn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv00354
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee
Shinn et al v. Anthony et al
as 1:2011cv00499
Petitioner:
David Shinn
Plaintiff:
EWM Enterprises, LP
Defendant:
Thomas Anthony, Dennis Kaaawa, Sr., David H. Kaawa, IV and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1443
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.
