Cases 1 - 10 of 15,101
Vargas Manzano v. Garland
as 24-1983
Petitioner:
NANCY OLIMPIA VARGAS MANZANO, ZURI AMARIS TUITISE VARGAS and EDISON FERNANDO TUITISE CUCHIPARTE
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Gaynor v. O'Malley
as 4:2024cv00157
Plaintiff:
Ramona Gaynor
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration and United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Georgia
Defendant:
Martin J. O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Tremble v. Martin O' Malley Office of the Regional Chief Counsel Region IV
as 4:2024cv00158
Interested Party:
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Georgia and Social Security Administration
Defendant:
Martin O' Malley Office of the Regional Chief Counsel Region IV and Martin O'Malley
Plaintiff:
Eboni Tremble
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Castro-Almonte v. Garland
as 24-1968
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner:
LUIS DAVID CASTRO-ALMONTE
Canales-Canales v. Garland
as 24-1962
Petitioner:
YOSTIN DARIEL TURCIOS-CANALES and RUTH ELIZABETH CANALES-CANALES
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Tenesaca-Sanango v. Garland
as 24-1963
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner:
MARIA ISABEL TENESACA-SANANGO and WALTER DAMIAN CHUCHO-TENESACA
Singh v. Garland
as 24-1969
Petitioner:
DALVINDER SINGH
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv01535
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Ye v. Garland
as 24-1957
Petitioner:
XIAN GENG YE
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Doe v. Garland
as 24-9545
Petitioner:
JOHN DOE
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General
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.
