Cases 11 - 20 of 153
Max-George v. Oath
as 23-40253
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Cecil Walter Max-George, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
Oath, Incorporated, also known as Yahoo!, Incorporated and Verizon Communications, Incorporated
Wagers v. Renasant Bank et al
as 4:2023cv00068
Plaintiff:
Cecil Joseph Wagers
Defendant:
Renasant Bank and Postal Inspection Dept
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Holley v. Garrido
as 4:2023cv00276
Petitioner:
James Cecil Holley, Jr.
Respondent:
Warden F.J. Garrido and F.J. Garrido
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Thompson v. United States of America
as 7:2023cv00010
Plaintiff:
Pamela Cecile Thompson
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Howell, Jr. v. Simon et al
as 9:2023cv00007
Plaintiff:
Cecil Howell, Jr.
Defendant:
Darra Simon, Sean B. Bridges, Michael A. Byerly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Max-George v. Equifax
as 22-40769
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Cecil Walter Max-George
Defendant / Appellee:
Equifax Information Services, L.L.C.
Howell, Jr. v. Bridges et al
as 9:2022cv00161
Plaintiff:
Cecil Howell, Jr.
Defendant:
Sean B. Bridges, Michael A. Byerly, Jr., John D. Lackey II and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Banks et al v. Valdez
as 4:2022cv03367
Plaintiff:
Cecil Demmerit Banks, Amario Lynn McPherson, Johnny Walker and others
Defendant:
Charley Valdez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv02947
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Armstrong v. Lumpkin
as 22-50677
Petitioner / Appellant:
Kendric Cecil Armstrong
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
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.
