Cases 1 - 10 of 100
LILES v. LOCKLEAR et al
as 1:2026cv01125
Plaintiff:
ALARIUS MONTREAL LILES
Defendant:
MARY LOCKLEAR, P. HARRISON and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LILES v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
as 1:2026cv01053
Plaintiff:
DARRELL LILES
Defendant:
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2026cv07472
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Gardiner v. Bell et al
as 6:2026cv00374
Plaintiff:
Matthew Gardiner
Defendant:
S Bell, M Jackson, S Liles and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
In re: Kamali River
as 26-12324
Petitioner:
In re: KAMALI RIVER
Respondent:
B. D. WALKER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, LILES C. BURKE and others
Liles v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 3:2026cv05699
Plaintiff:
Tamy Liles
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Watkins v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 6:2026cv01300
Plaintiff:
Christine Watkins and Christine Liles
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Mouraveiko v. Lile International Companies, et al.
as 26-3734
Plaintiff:
TIMOFEI MOURAVEIKO
Defendant:
LILE INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES and SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, PC
Liles v. Dieter et al
as 1:2026cv01911
Plaintiff:
David Lynn Liles
Defendant:
Sloan Dieter, Stuart Wright and Sheriffs Dept Natchitoches Parish
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv00333
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
