Cases 1 - 10 of 10
David Mitchell, II v. Douglas County, et al
as 24-1839
Plaintiff:
David Mitchell, II
Defendant:
Douglas County, a Nebraska Political Subdivision, Donald W. Kleine, in his individual and official capacity as Douglas County Attorney, Douglas County Attorney's Office and others
Mitchell v. County of Douglas et al
as 8:2023cv00332
Plaintiff:
David Dawayne Mitchell and David Mitchell
Defendant:
Clerk County of Douglas, State of Nebraska, Douglas County Atty. Donald W. Kleine, Attorney's Office Douglas County and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00126
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Shawn Pearson v. USA
as 20-1251
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner / Appellant:
SHAWN PEARSON
PEARSON v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv07714
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
SHAWN PEARSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Pearson v. USA
as 4:2019cv13441
Petitioner:
Shawn Pearson
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Pearson v. Ridgeland Correctional Institution
as 1:2017cv02515
Plaintiff:
Shawn Pearson
Defendant:
Ridgeland Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mast et al v. Ridgeland Correctional Institution
as 1:2017cv02038
Plaintiff:
Randy Mast, Thomas Caron, William Taylor and others
Defendant:
Ridgeland Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
USA v. Shawn Pearson
as 17-1724
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
SHAWN PEARSON
United States of America v. Pearson (Johnson)
as 11-3897
Appellee USA:
United States of America
Defendant:
Daron Pearson, AKA Zoo, Sean Pearson, AKA Shawn Pearson, Leteisha Hunte and others
Defendant - Appellant:
Sirmair Johnson, AKA Snipe
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.
