Cases 31 - 40 of 322
Scott v. State of Nevada et al
as 3:2023cv00248
Plaintiff:
James Edward Scott, III
Defendant:
State of Nevada, Gov. Steve Sisolak, Gov. Brian Sandoval and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. Cobb et al
as 3:2023cv00250
Plaintiff:
James Edward Scott, III
Defendant:
Cobb, Valez, Isidrio Baca and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. Miller et al
as 3:2023cv00252
Plaintiff:
James Edward Scott, III
Defendant:
Lt. Miller, Mike (John) Henley, Robert Hartman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. Cheney
as 3:2023cv00246
Plaintiff:
James Edward Scott
Defendant:
Coach Cheney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. Holtz et al
as 3:2023cv00253
Plaintiff:
James Edward Scott, III
Defendant:
Holtz, Taitano, Omler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. Fukagawa et al
as 3:2023cv00254
Plaintiff:
James Edward Scott, III
Defendant:
Gaylene Fukagawa, Melissa Michell, Crystal Waters and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. Frazier et al
as 3:2023cv00251
Plaintiff:
James Edward Scott, III
Defendant:
Frenandeis A. Frazier, Lt. Miller, Perry Russell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. Michell et al
as 3:2023cv00231
Plaintiff:
James Edward Scott, III
Defendant:
Melissa Michell, Gaylene Fukagawa, Vanessa and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv01716
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
(HC) Dailey v. State of California
as 1:2023cv00389
Petitioner:
James Edward Dailey
Respondent:
State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
