Cases 1 - 10 of 48
Smith v. Garland et al
as 3:2023cv00390
Plaintiff:
Joseph P. Smith
Defendant:
Merrick B. Garland and U.S. Marshals Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Smith v. Maddox et al
as 1:2023cv03454
Petitioner:
Stephenson Lamar Smith
Respondent:
Melody M. Maddox, A. Morrell, Andrea Jones and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Judge Denise Casper et al
as 1:2023cv11655
Plaintiff:
Steven L Smith
Defendant:
Judge Denise Casper and U.S. Marshals Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Clifford P Turner v. U.S. Marshalls Office Service
as 1:2023cv00153
Petitioner:
Clifford Pollard Turner
Respondent:
U.S. Marshalls Office Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clifford P. Turner v. U.S. Marshalls Office Service
as 2:2023cv01458
Petitioner:
Clifford Pollard Turner
Respondent:
U.S. Marshalls Office Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Marrero v. Anthony et al
as 1:2022cv01341
Plaintiff:
Tito E. Marrero
Defendant:
Stephen Anthony, David Kasulones, Private Security Company Contracted at Louis Stokes for Security and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Turner v. U.S. Marshal's Office
as 5:2021cv00595
Petitioner:
Clifford P. Turner
Respondent:
U.S. Marshal's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Turner v. U.S. Marshals Office
as 3:2021cv01183
Plaintiff:
Clifford P. Turner
Defendant:
U.S. Marshals Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mortimer v. Chapman
as 21-528
Petitioner:
60 91st Street Corporation
Respondent / Appellee:
U.S. Marshall Office, Shelley C. Chapman, Bankruptcy Judge and Heidi J. Sorvino, Bankruptcy Trustee
Petitioner / Appellant:
Kim Mortimer
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv00877
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 mn
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.
