Cases 1 - 10 of 25
Thomas v. Tulsa County Sheriff, et al
as 24-5057
Plaintiff:
BYRON C. THOMAS
Defendant:
TULSA COUNTY SHERIFF, UNITED STATES MARSHALS, U.S. DEPUTY MARSHAL JOEY POFFEL and others
Pittman v. Cardenas, et al
as 23-1232
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EMANUEL PITTMAN
Defendant / Appellee:
CARDENAS, BRYANT and ROLAND JACKSON
Mitchell v. Parris, et al
as 23-5081
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANIEL LEE MITCHELL
Defendant / Appellee:
JEFFERY BRYANT JONES, Attorney Cherokee Nation, individual capacity, ZACHARY STARKEY, Captain Rogers County Sheriff Department, individual capacity, DETENTION OFFICER MALLOT, Rogers County Sheriff Department, individual capacity and others
Ezell v. Hininger, et al
as 23-7007
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES RICKY EZELL, III
Defendant / Appellee:
DAMON HININGER, CEO of Core Civic, JAMES YATES, Warden, Davis Correctional Facility, DEPUTY WARDEN GENTRY and others
Ezell v. Hininger, et al
as 22-7024
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES RICKY EZELL, III
Defendant / Appellee:
DAMON HININGER, CEO of Core Civic, JAMES YATES, Warden, Davis Correctional Facility, DEPUTY WARDEN GENTRY and others
Reed v. Bryant, et al
as 17-6082
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHAD WILLIAM REED
Defendant - Appellee:
JASON BRYANT, KELLY CURRY, LAWRENCE BELL, MD - Doctor of Medicine and others
Reed v. Bryant
as 17-7021
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHAD WILLIAM REED
Respondent - Appellee:
JASON BRYANT, Warden
Woodson v. McCollum, et al
as 17-6064
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARCUS D. WOODSON
Defendant - Appellee:
TRACY MCCOLLUM, in individual capacity, BRUCE BORNHIEM, in individual capacity, JOE ALLBAUGH, in his official and individual capacities and others
Bryant v. Stancil
as 16-1500
Petitioner - Appellant:
MICHAEL DAVIS BRYANT
Respondent - Appellee:
MOSES STANCIL, Acting Warden, FCI Florence
Wolfe v. Bryant
as 16-5150
Petitioner - Appellant:
MARK LEE WOLFE
Respondent - Appellee:
JASON BRYANT, Warden
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.
