Cases 21 - 30 of 44
Davis v. USP Pollock
as 4:2020cv00435
Plaintiff:
Demarcus Davis
Defendant:
USP Pollock
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gassew v. USP Beaumont et al
as 1:2020cv00183
Defendant:
Warden, Federal Bureau of Prisons and USP Beaumont
Plaintiff:
John Gassew
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mahoney v. Ojajuni et al
as 1:2019cv00520
Defendant:
U S Attorney General William Barr, Capt USP Bmt W. Hozapfel, FNU Edwards and others
Plaintiff:
Andre Mahoney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Mahoney v. Ojajuni et al
as 6:2019cv00472
Defendant:
U S Attorney General William Barr, Capt USP Bmt W. Hozapfel, FNU Edwards and others
Plaintiff:
Andre Mahoney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Matthews v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2019cv00240
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, USP Beaumont and SIS Officer Nilen
Plaintiff:
Kittrell Matthews
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. FBOP
as 4:2018cv02662
Defendant:
Beaumont (USP) FBOP
Plaintiff:
Kwhun Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Daniels v. Known and Unknown Employees of USP Beaumont TX
as 1:2017cv00498
Plaintiff:
Mark Justin Daniels
Defendant:
Known and Unknown Employees of USP Beaumont TX
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Minnfee v. USPS Consumer Industry Contract et al
as 4:2017cv00355
Plaintiff:
Barry Dwayne Minnfee
Defendant:
USPS Consumer Industry Contract, FBI Associate Counsel, US District Judge Consuelo M Callahan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bell v. The USPS City of Texas Lovelady Inc. et al
as 9:2017cv00044
Plaintiff:
Joseph Bell
Defendant:
The USPS City of Texas Lovelady Inc., Tammy J Warren and Bruce A Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Richardson v. United States of America et al
as 1:2016cv00035
Plaintiff:
Bryan Keith Richardson
Defendant:
United States of America, Attorney General, Director of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
