Cases 21 - 30 of 40
Harner v. State of Utah et al
as 2:2015cv00456
Plaintiff:
Timothy Wayne Harner
Defendant:
State of Utah and Utah Board of Pardons and Parole
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Herbert et al
as 2:2015cv00041
Plaintiff:
Michael Anthony Jones
Defendant:
Gary R. Herbert, Jesse Gallegos, Tena Campbell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Naves v. Bigelow, et al
as 14-4010
Petitioner - Appellant:
RANDY THOMAS NAVES
Respondent - Appellee:
ALFRED C. BIGELOW, UTAH BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLE and STATE OF UTAH
Gallup v. Utah Board of Pardons and Parole
as 2:2013cv00886
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey M. Gallup
Defendant:
Utah Board of Pardons and Parole
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Naves v. Bigelow et al
as 2:2013cv00379
Petitioner:
Randy Thomas Naves
Respondent:
Alfred C. Bigelow, Utah Board of Pardons and Parole and State of Utah
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Spencer v. Bigelow et al
as 2:2013cv00334
Petitioner:
Jeffrey Keith Spencer
Respondent:
R. Bigelow, Utah State Board of Pardons and Parole, Clark A. Harms and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sherratt v. Utah Department of Corrections, et al
as 13-4061
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM HENRY SHERRATT
Defendant - Appellee:
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, UTAH STATE PRISON, UTAH CONTRACT ATTORNEYS and others
Tohannie v. State of Utah et al
as 2:2012cv00572
Petitioner:
Joseph Urshel Tohannie
Respondent:
State of Utah and Utah Board of Pardons and Parole
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Everson v. Perry et al
as 2:2012cv00510
Petitioner:
Ike Everson
Respondent:
FNU Perry, Mark Shurtleff and Board of Pardons and Parole
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Tillman v. Bigelow, et al
as 12-4026
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ELROY TILLMAN
Defendant - Appellee:
ALFRED C. BIGELOW, Warden of Utah State Prison and CURTIS L. GARNER, Chairman of Board of Pardons and Parole
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.
