Cases 31 - 40 of 407
Riley v. USA
as 3:2022cv02660
Petitioner:
Hafan Antonio Riley
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Terrance Riley v. Christopher Gomez
as 22-6815
Petitioner / Appellant:
TERRANCE JEROME RILEY
Respondent / Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ, Warden
ELLIS v. CABARRUS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al
as 1:2022cv00573
Plaintiff:
SHAWN PATRICK ELLIS
Defendant:
CABARRUS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, KEVIN M. KLINGLESMITH, JOSHUA HELMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Riley v. Ramos
as 5:2022hc02112
Petitioner:
Michael A. Riley
Respondent:
Warden R. Ramos
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Goodwin v. Riley et al DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE. FILE IN LEAD CASE NO. 3:22cv00452
as 3:2022cv00453
Plaintiff:
Jeremiah Goodwin
Defendant:
Dr. Riley and Central State
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Goodwin v. Central State et al
as 7:2022cv00243
Plaintiff:
Jeremiah Goodwin
Defendant:
Central State, Dr. Riley and Treatment Team
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Goodwin v. Central State, et al. FILE IN LEAD CASE ONLY - 3:22cv00452.
as 3:2022cv00452
Plaintiff:
Jeremiah Goodwin
Defendant:
Central State, Dr. Riley and Treatment Team
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Goodwin v. Riley et al
as 7:2022cv00273
Plaintiff:
Jeremiah Goodwin
Defendant:
Dr. Riley and Central State
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Steve Audette v. US
as 22-6471
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEVE AUDETTE
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DR. NOGO, DR. BYRON HERBAL and others
CARRINGTON v. SHARF et al
as 1:2022cv00424
Plaintiff:
THEODORE MACON CARRINGTON, JR.
Defendant:
DR. A. SHARF, DR. STRIBLING RILEY, FBOP (FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS) and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
