Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Collazo et al v. Banque De Montreal et al
as 1:2023cv09105
Plaintiff:
Joshua DANIEL Lockamy, Joshua Lockamy, Xavier Daniel Collazo and others
Defendant:
BANQUE DE MONTREAL, VANTAGE LOGISTICS SERVICE INC, PRINCEDEEP SINGH and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 pi Diversity-Personal Injury
Antonio Daniels v. State of Minnesota
as 21-3226
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Antonio Xavier Daniels
Defendant / Appellee:
State of Minnesota
US v. Xavier Eccleston
as 20-7115
Defendant / Appellant:
XAVIER D. ECCLESTON, a/k/a Xavier Daniel Eccleston, a/k/a X
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Daniels v. State of Minnesota
as 0:2019cv00807
Petitioner:
Antonio Xavier Daniels
Respondent:
State of Minnesota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Clark et al v. Conway et al
as 1:2018cv05416
Plaintiff:
Kelda Lisette Gordon, Nicolas Stewart, Wali K. Bascoe and others
Defendant:
Lt. Col. Carl Sims and R.L. (Butch) Conway
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Daniels v. Allen et al
as 6:2017cv00045
Plaintiff:
Xavier Daniels
Defendant:
Mardy Allen, Bobbitt, Hutchinson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Xavier Daniels v. Georgia Department of Correcti, et al
as 16-16719
Plaintiff - Appellant:
XAVIER DANIELS
Defendant - Appellee:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT TOOLE, Georgia State Prison, in his individual capacity and STANLEY WILLIAMS, Warden Smith State Prison, in his individual capacity
Daniels v. Upton et al
as 6:2016cv00094
Plaintiff:
Xavier Daniels
Defendant:
Upton, Robert Toole and Stanley Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Daniels v. Owens et al
as 6:2015cv00143
Plaintiff:
Xavier Daniels
Defendant:
Brian Owens, Stanley Williams, Deal and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
US v. Xavier Eccleston
as 13-4133
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
XAVIER D. ECCLESTON, a/k/a Xavier Daniel Eccleston, a/k/a X
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.
