Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00183
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination
Williams
as 4:2022cv09107
Plaintiff:
Stephen Lamont Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Williams v. Mule Creek State Prison
as 2:2022cv02103
Plaintiff:
Stephen L Willaims and Stephen Lamont Williams
Defendant:
Mule Creek State Prison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams
as 4:2022cv07311
Plaintiff:
Stephen L Willaims and Stephen L. Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stephen Williams v. Neil McDowell, et al
as 22-55417
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEPHEN JEROME WILLIAMS
Defendant / Appellee:
NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden, Warden, Ironwood State Prison, individual, F. ALVEREZ, Correctional Lieutenant for the Investigative Services Unit at I.S.P., individual, J. FRIAS, Correctional Sergeant for the Investigative Services Unit at I.S.P., individual and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2020cv06473
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Stephen Jerome Williams v. Neil McDowell et al
as 5:2018cv01101
Defendant:
S. Abril, A. Allen, F. Alverez and others
Plaintiff:
Stephen Jerome Williams
Stephen Williams v. E. Hazel, et al
as 17-17466
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STEPHEN JEROME WILLIAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
E. HAZEL, Sgt., B. DAVIS, Sgt., M. CHANDLER, Correctional Officer and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2017cv06639
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Richards et al v. Capital Partners Funding Group, Inc.
as 2:2016mc00069
Petitioner:
Paul C. Richards and Stephen P. Williams
Defendant:
Capital Partners Funding Group, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
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.
