Cases 21 - 30 of 40
SCHULTZ v. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al
as 1:2018cv00184
Plaintiff:
KIRK SCHULTZ
Defendant:
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, TIMOTHY D. CONWAY, JR., SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SCHULTZ v. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al
as 1:2018cv00187
Plaintiff:
KIRK SCHULTZ
Defendant:
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, FBI HEADQUARTERS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SCHULTZ v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 1:2018cv00186
Plaintiff:
KIRK SCHULTZ
Defendant:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, YOLO EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE AUTHORITY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HODGES v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
as 1:2017cv02063
Plaintiff:
YEARNER ANN HODGES
Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
BLACKMAN v. ALLEN et al
as 1:2017cv01963
Plaintiff:
TERRENCE BUTCH ALLAH BLACKMAN
Defendant:
ALLEN and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FLETCHER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
as 1:2016cv00613
Petitioner:
DEBORAH DIANE FLETCHER
Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
LISENKO v. GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
as 1:2016cv00525
Plaintiff:
MARIANNE LISENKO
Defendant:
GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC, SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC, GOVERNMENT OF CANADA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv01174
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
DANIEL v. MARYLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2015cv00603
Plaintiff:
HABTAMU DANIEL
Defendant:
MARYLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, DC HOUSING AUTHORITY, ALEXANDRIA HOUSING AUTHORITY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv02003
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
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.
