Cases 21 - 30 of 177
Heath v. Brouse et al DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE. Case has been electronically transferred to USDC ED/TX- Marshall Division.
as 2:2023cv00315
Plaintiff:
Secial Heath
Respondent:
Charolette Brouse and Mallory Brouse
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heath v. Brimingham et al
as 4:2023cv02128
Plaintiff:
Secial Heath
Defendant:
Rod Brimingham and Don Dawson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heath v. Davenport
as 23-20199
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Secial Heath
Defendant / Appellee:
Stacy Davenport
Heath v. Denykayzky
as 23-10469
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Secial Heath, also known as Sammie Brown, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
David Denykayzky, Mike Denykayzky, David Hollingworth and others
Heath v. Brimingham et al DO NOT DOCKET Case electronically transferred to The Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.
as 2:2023cv00275
Plaintiff:
Secial Heath
Respondent:
Rod Brimingham and Don Dawson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heath v. French Robertson Unit
as 1:2023cv00070
Plaintiff:
Secial Heath
Defendant:
French Robertson Unit
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heath v. Raymond
as 4:2023cv01625
Plaintiff:
Secial Heath
Defendant:
Stacy Raymond
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heath v. Anderson et al
as 4:2023cv01791
Plaintiff:
Secial Heath
Defendant:
Nicole DaShun Anderson and Daisy Davenport
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heath v. Board of Pardon and Parole
as 4:2023cv01523
Plaintiff:
Secial Heath
Defendant:
Board of Pardon and Parole
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gomez v. Harrison County, Mississippi
as 1:2023cv00073
Plaintiff:
Brian Heath Gomez
Defendant:
Harrison County, Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
