Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Donald Reynolds v. D. Young
as 23-6346
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DONALD REYNOLDS
Defendant / Appellee:
D. L. YOUNG, Warden, MANNING, SIS officer, SWEENY, SIS officer and others
Roland Mathis v. D.L. Young
as 22-6013
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROLAND MATHIS
Defendant / Appellee:
D.L. YOUNG, Warden, OFFICER T. SWEENY, OFFICER J. SWAGER and others
Reynolds v. Young
as 5:2020cv00753
Defendant:
D. L. Young, Sweeny, Manning and others
Plaintiff:
Donald Reynolds
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Johnson v. Rigual et al
as 2:2019cv00696
Defendant:
Spotsylvania County, Virginia 22553, Ricardo Rigual, Amanda Sweeny and others
Plaintiff:
Deandre Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mathis v. Young et al
as 5:2019cv00615
Defendant:
Officer J. Swager, D. L. Young, Secretary J. Perry and others
Plaintiff:
Roland Mathis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Butts et al v. 3M Company, The et al
as 2:2018cv03394
Plaintiff:
Christine (I) Walker, Joshua (I) Schaule, Jon Frost and others
Defendant:
Kidde PLC, Inc., UTC FIre & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Scates v. Doe et al
as 1:2017cv00022
Plaintiff:
David M Scates
Defendant:
John Doe, Jane Doe, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Frank Vigil, Jr. v. John Walrach
as 16-6050
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FRANK VIGIL, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN WALRACH, Assistant Warden, WALTER SWEENY, Unit Manager B-Building and RANDALL MATHENA, Superintendent and former Warden of ROSP
Scates v. Doe et al
as 6:2015cv02904
Plaintiff:
David M Scates
Defendant:
John Doe, Jane Doe, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Morgan et al
as 1:2014cv00478
Plaintiff:
Aaron Matthew Brown, Jr
Defendant:
J. Phillip Morgan, Anne Maddox, Lt. Barciz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
