Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Francis Grandinetti, II v. Urine Drug Test, et al
as 17-17199
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FRANCIS ANTHONY GRANDINETTI II
Defendant - Appellee:
URINE DRUG TEST, "Urine Drug Test" hearing staff, SCC, for DPS/FDC Branch - Hawaii, REDWOOD TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY, INC., Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, CA, INVERNESS MEDICAL, INC., Inverness Medical, Inc., CA and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv00666
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
RENDON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 1:2013cv01636
Plaintiff:
RICARDO RENDON
Defendant:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Burman v. Holder et al
as 1:2012cv00561
Petitioner:
ALLAH A. BURMAN
Respondent:
Eric Holder, U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, DIRECTOR, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Bacchus v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
as 5:2012cv01689
Petitioner:
Reginald Bacchus
Respondent:
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 3114 Motion for Return of Seized Property
BURMAN v. HOLDER et al
as 1:2012cv01747
Petitioner:
ALLAH A. BURMAN
Respondent:
ERIC HOLDER, U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, DIRECTOR, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Vazquez v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
as 3:2012cv00028
Plaintiff:
Juan Antonio Vazquez
Defendant:
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
JAMES v. U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION et al
as 1:2008cv00842
Plaintiff:
SHANELL JAMES
Defendant:
U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
