West Virginia Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 81 - 90 of 748
Haller v. Marshall et al
as 1:2023cv00204
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Haller
Defendant:
William K. Marshall, Curtis Dixon, Shawn Straughn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Young v. Young et al
as 5:2023cv00088
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Young
Defendant:
Warden D. L. Young, Warden Heckard, B. L. Fain and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Chi v. United States of America
as 1:2023cv00196
Plaintiff:
Anson Chi
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Via v. Reedy
as 2:2023cv00189
Plaintiff:
Adam Via
Defendant:
Correctional Officer Reedy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
James v. Townsent et al
as 5:2023cv00080
Plaintiff:
Myron Sylveste James
Defendant:
J Townsent, T Solmon Murice, J F Dimes and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Ortiz v. Hicks
as 5:2023cv00079
Plaintiff:
Nathanael R. Ortiz
Defendant:
Lieutenant Hicks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Vonehl v. Lovett et al
as 5:2023cv00072
Plaintiff:
Adam Michael Vonehl
Defendant:
S. Lovett, Office of Inspector General and Federal Bureau of Prisons Central Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
McKelvey v. Spence et al
as 2:2023cv00146
Plaintiff:
Jamel McKelvey
Defendant:
C. O. Spence and South Central Regional Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Steele v. FCI Hazelton Medical Staff
as 1:2023cv00128
Plaintiff:
Lacosta Steele
Defendant:
FCI Hazelton Medical Staff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Owens v. Haynes et al
as 5:2023cv00123
Plaintiff:
Ronnie Owens
Defendant:
Correctional Officer Haynes, Correctional Officer Toney, Correctional Officer Pack and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
