Cases 51 - 60 of 229
Jones v. Johnson et al
as 1:2022cv00599
Plaintiff:
Brandon Jones
Defendant:
William P Johnson, Charles L Barth, Adam S Rowley and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Jones v. Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2022cv00597
Plaintiff:
Brandon Jones
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons, USA, William P Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bowles v. Tennessee Department of Correctional - CCA et al
as 3:2022cv00032
Plaintiff:
Mario Bowles
Defendant:
Tennessee Department of Correctional - CCA, Warden f/n/u Frink, Assistant Warden J. Norman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stone et al v. The City of Dallas County Texas et al
as 3:2022cv00070
Plaintiff:
Alfred Lee Stone, Hattie Byrd, Maxzine Byrd and others
Defendant:
The City of Dallas County Texas, Jim Bowles, Police Chief and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Goode v. Cook et al
as 3:2022cv00011
Plaintiff:
Jason Goode
Defendant:
Rollin Cook, R. Bowles, Molden and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Miller v. Caron et al
as 3:2021cv01583
Plaintiff:
Robert Gene Miller
Defendant:
Caron, Bowles, Kenny and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bowling v. WCI
as 1:2021cv02734
Plaintiff:
John Bowling
Defendant:
WCI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Chapman v. Hensley et al
as 5:2021cv00140
Plaintiff:
Marcus Fitzgang Chapman
Defendant:
Garret A. Hensley, Sgt. Fannin and Robert Bowling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris v. Gabbard et al
as 6:2021cv00103
Plaintiff:
Lamont Harris
Defendant:
D. Bowles and D. Gabbard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Holmes v. Owen et al
as 1:2021cv00085
Defendant:
ER Tech Rodrick, Medical Center of Bowling Green, KY, Officer Michele Owen and others
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Holmes, III
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.
