Cases 1 - 10 of 96
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01843
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv12229
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
USA v. Vasque-Davila
as 22-40803
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Gumaro Vasque-Davila
LaQuinton D. Bowers, Sr v. James Hill et al
as 5:2022cv02072
Plaintiff:
LaQuinton D. Bowers, Sr
Defendant:
James Hill, R. Roble, V. Vasques and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Najera-Gomez, et al. v. Garland
as 22-1816
Petitioner:
REYNA DEL CARMEN NAJERA-GOMEZ and JUSTIN ORLANDO VASQUES-NAJERA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Willoughby v. Davis
as 22-10926
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Gary Wayne Willoughby
Defendant / Appellee:
Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, K. Richardson, Senior Warden, J. Tovar, Assistant Warden and others
Hector Eduardo Carrillo-Vasques v. Kilolo Kijakazi
as 2:2022cv07003
Plaintiff:
Hector Eduardo Carrillo-Vasques
Defendant:
Kilolo Kijakazi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Vasques-Garcia v. Gentry et al
as 4:2022cv04097
Plaintiff:
Juan Vasques-Garcia
Defendant:
Robert Gentry, Arenar Romona, Deputy Chris Walcott and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(HC) Tejeda v. California Highway Patrol
as 2:2022cv01213
Petitioner:
Pedro Jose Tejeda and Pedro Tegeda Vasques
Respondent:
California Highway Patrol
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jackson v. Vasques
as 4:2022cv02557
Plaintiff:
Lawrence Jackson
Defendant:
Jeffrey Vasques
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
