Roosevelt Williams v. Jocelyn Benson
| ROOSEVELT LASHAWN WILLIAMS |
| JOCELYN BENSON, in both capacities as Michigan Secretary of State |
| 26-1997 |
| November 5, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit |
| Civil Rights: Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 6, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 2
ORDER filed to dismiss as a duplicate appeal of case number 26-1982. 6th Cir. R. 45(a)(8). No mandate to issue.. (JEC) [Entered: 11/06/2026 02:22 PM]
|
| Filing 1 Civil Case Docketed. Notice filed by Appellant Mr. Roosevelt Lashawn Williams. Transcript needed: n. (JEC) [Entered: 11/05/2026 02:36 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Roosevelt Williams v. Jocelyn Benson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: JOCELYN BENSON, in both capacities as Michigan Secretary of State | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: ROOSEVELT LASHAWN WILLIAMS | |
| Represented By: | Roosevelt Lashawn Williams |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
