Cases 41 - 49 of 49
David Williams v. Charles Samuels, Jr., et al
as 16-12050
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Retired), SCOTT A. MIDDLEBROOKS, Warden-FCC Coleman USP-1 (Retired) and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2015cv00069
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Phipps et al v. United States of America et al
as 1:2013cv02019
Plaintiff:
James Ray Phipps, Ora Lee Calloway and National Tee-Party
Defendant:
United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Sandra Moore and others
Phipps et al v. United States of America et al
as 1:2013cv02109
Plaintiff:
James Ray Phipps, Ora Lee Calloway and National Tee-Party
Defendant:
United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Sandra Moore and others
Hurst v. United States Internal Revenue Service
as 5:2012cv03619
Plaintiff:
Robbie L Hurst
Defendant:
United States Internal Revenue Service
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv01929
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Turner v. United States et al
as 2:2011cv00079
Petitioner:
Daniel Edward Turner
Respondent:
United States, Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Jackson v. U.S.A. et al
as 5:2007cv00287
Plaintiff:
Derrick Jackson
Defendant:
U.S.A., Derrick Liler, Internal Revenue Service and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv00995
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 pr Complaint for mandamus relief (prisoner)
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.
