Cases 71 - 80 of 121
Banks v. U. S. Marshal
as 4:2013cv00490
Plaintiff:
Frederick Banks
Defendant:
U. S. Marshal , Michael Pugh and Transcor
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Banks v. Pugh et al
as 4:2013cv00335
Petitioner:
Frederick Banks
Respondent:
Michael Pugh, Anthony Pastillo, Lala Erie and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Edmonds v. Pugh
as 4:2013cv00301
Petitioner:
Jermaine Edmonds
Respondent:
Michael Pugh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Banks v. Pugh et al
as 4:2013cv00238
Petitioner:
Frederick Banks
Respondent:
M. Pugh, United States Marshal, Pam Butler and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Bajwa v. United States of America et al
as 4:2013cv00224
Petitioner:
Harmett Singh Bajwa
Respondent:
United States of America, Michael Pugh and Charles B. Samuel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Banks v. Scarsborough et al
as 4:2013cv00170
Plaintiff:
Frederick Banks
Defendant:
Drew Scarsborough, Frank DeClair, Doug LNU and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Cardona-Rodriguez v. Pugh et al
as 4:2013cv00025
Plaintiff:
Francisco Cardona-Rodriguez
Defendant:
Michael Pugh, D. Hivner and Dennis Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Bishawi v. NEOCC et al
as 4:2012cv03106
Plaintiff:
Ahmad Bishawi
Defendant:
NEOCC, CCA Corrections Corporation of America, Roddie Rushing and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Pugh v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as 2:2012cv01193
Plaintiff:
Terry Pugh
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
Perez v. Pugh et al
as 4:2012cv03068
Plaintiff:
Armando Perez
Defendant:
Michael Pugh, Dennis Johnson and D. Hivner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
