Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00217
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
US v. Eric Barker
as 22-6974
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
ERIC SCOTT BARKER, a/k/a Skateboard, a/k/a Skate
US v. Eric Pennington
as 21-4664
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
ERIC SCOTT PENNINGTON
Hamm v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health et al
as 9:2021cv03084
Plaintiff:
Michael E Hamm
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Mental Health, John Magill, Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program Director and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
US v. Eric Barker
as 21-7356
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
ERIC SCOTT BARKER, a/k/a Skateboard, a/k/a Skate
US v. Tadd Vassell
as 21-7140
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
TADD ERROL VASSELL, a/k/a Todd Errol Vassell, a/k/a Chris Daley, a/k/a Michael Derwitt, a/k/a Andre Nunes, a/k/a Corey Ryant, a/k/a Eric Scott
Barker v. Keeley et al
as 3:2020cv00202
Defendant:
U.S. Attorney's Office Northern District of West Virginia, Irene Keeley, U.S. Marshals Service Northern District of West Virginia and others
Plaintiff:
Eric Scott Barker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
US v. Todd Vassell
as 20-6539
Defendant / Appellant:
TODD ERROL VASSELL, a/k/a Tadd Errol Vassell, a/k/a Chris Daley, a/k/a Michael Derwitt, a/k/a Andre Nunes, a/k/a Corey Ryant, a/k/a Eric Scott
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Barker v. USA
as 1:2019cv00134
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Eric Scott Barker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
US v. Eric Scott
as 17-4458
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ERIC SCOTT, a/k/a Houlio, a/k/a Houli, a/k/a God, a/k/a U-God
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.
