TATUM v. BIDEN et al
| THOMAS TATUM |
| JOSEPH BIDEN, METROPOLITAN POLICE, DANIEL THAU, ERIC WALDO, THOMAS LOYD, BRYANT WILLIAMS, MICHAEL LEROY BRYD, ROBERT GLOVER, EDWARDS FRANK, JIMMY CRISMAN, PAUL RILEY, TARA TINDALL, LILA MORRIS, JASON BAGSHAW, YOGANDA PITMAN, JAMES RAY EPPS, JAMES MICHAEL JOHNSON and BARRY LOUDERMILK |
| 1:2024cv00033 |
| January 4, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Reggie B Walton |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 5, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| SUMMONS Not Issued as to JASON BAGSHAW, JOSEPH BIDEN, MICHAEL LEROY BRYD, JIMMY CRISMAN, JAMES RAY EPPS, EDWARDS FRANK, ROBERT GLOVER, JAMES MICHAEL JOHNSON, BARRY LOUDERMILK, THOMAS LOYD, METROPOLITAN POLICE, LILA MORRIS, YOGANDA PITMAN, PAUL RILEY, DANIEL THAU, TARA TINDALL, ERIC WALDO, BRYANT WILLIAMS. (ztth) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against JASON BAGSHAW, JOSEPH BIDEN, MICHAEL LEROY BRYD, JIMMY CRISMAN, JAMES RAY EPPS, EDWARDS FRANK, ROBERT GLOVER, JAMES MICHAEL JOHNSON, BARRY LOUDERMILK, THOMAS LOYD, METROPOLITAN POLICE, LILA MORRIS, YOGANDA PITMAN, PAUL RILEY, DANIEL THAU, TARA TINDALL, ERIC WALDO, BRYANT WILLIAMS (Filing fee $ 405, receipt number 206363) with Jury Demand filed by THOMAS TATUM. (Attachment: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ztth) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
