Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Waldron v. Streeval et al
as 7:2024cv00324
Plaintiff:
Rondell Waldron
Defendant:
J.C. Streeval, USP Lee, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Mattox v. USP Big Sandy
as 7:2024cv00027
Plaintiff:
Marcus Anthony Mattox
Defendant:
USP Big Sandy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Davis v. USP Big Sandy
as 2:2023cv00817
Plaintiff:
Demaurea Davis and De'Maurea Davis
Defendant:
USP Big Sandy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Ford v. Joyner et al
as 7:2023cv00034
Plaintiff:
Samuel B. Ford
Defendant:
Hector Joyner and USP Big Sandy, Director of Medical Services
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Lucas v. USP Big Sandy
as 7:2020cv00127
Plaintiff:
Andre Lucas
Defendant:
USP Big Sandy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Harris v. USP Big Sandy Warden Joyner et al
as 7:2020cv00098
Defendant:
USP Big Sandy Administration, USP Big Sandy Staff/Employees and USP Big Sandy Warden Joyner
Plaintiff:
Charlie Harris
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris et al v. USP Big Sandy Warden Joyner et al
as 3:2020cv00321
Plaintiff:
Julius Lee Thomas, Charlie Harris, RonDell Harris and others
Defendant:
Employees/Staff Officers, Etc., USP Big Sandy Food Services Admin, USP Big Sandy Warden Joyner and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reynolds-Bey v. USP Big Sandy
as 7:2017cv00114
Petitioner:
Donald-Ray Reynolds-Bey, (SPC)
Respondent:
USP Big Sandy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Abdul-Aziz Muhammad v. Dane Heady
as 17-6081
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ABDUL-AZIZ RASHID MUHAMMAD
Defendant - Appellee:
DANE HEADY, Retired Unit Manager, MICHAEL WEAVER, Health Service Administrator, EDDIE ANDERSON, DO and others
Torres v. USP Big Sandy, et al
as 7:2016cv00020
Plaintiff:
Jesus Benitez Torres
Defendant:
USP Big Sandy, Ruben Carmona, Mata Mendoza and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
