Cases 1 - 10 of 195
Crago #115357 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2024cv00942
Plaintiff:
Earl Felton Crago, Jr.
Defendant:
Ryan Thornell and Derric Keaton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Crago v. Shinn, et al.
as 24-603
Petitioner / Appellant:
EARL FELTON CRAGO, JR.
Respondent / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REHABILITATION, AND REENTRY and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv06818
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Felton Love, Jr. v. Jeff Macomber, et al
as 23-15895
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FELTON LOVE, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
JEFF MACOMBER, Warden, KATHLEEN ALLISON, TRACY JOHNSON and others
Felton Ladell Humphries, Jr. v. Dan Samuels
as 2:2023cv04179
Petitioner:
Felton Ladell Humphries, Jr.
Respondent:
Dan Samuels
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Felton Love, Jr. v. Jeff Macomber, et al
as 23-15748
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FELTON LOVE, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
JEFF MACOMBER, Warden, KATHLEEN ALLISON, TRACY JOHNSON and others
(PC) Love v. Macomber et al
as 2:2023cv00790
Plaintiff:
Felton Love, Jr.
Defendant:
Jeff Macomber, Kathleen Allison, Tracy Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Love v. Macomber et al
as 2:2023at00391
Defendant:
Jeff Macomber and Felton Love, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Downs v. Oregon Board of Parole Members et al
as 3:2023cv00595
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Diane Downs
Defendant:
Oregon Board of Parole Members, Michael Washington, Diane Rea and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Felton Love, Jr. v. Rick Hill, et al
as 23-15312
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FELTON LOVE, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
RICK M. HILL, J. HECKMAN, D. HARRIS and others
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.
