Cases 111 - 120 of 132
Dury v. Copenhaver
as 1:2012cv01726
Plaintiff:
Matthew James Dury
Defendant:
Paul Copenhaver
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Horner v. Shearin et al
as 1:2012cv02582
Petitioner:
Matthew James Horner
Respondent:
Bobby P. Shearin and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
King v. Neven et al
as 2:2012cv00572
Defendant:
Scott Alexander, Maintenance Mike, Cole Morrow and others
Plaintiff:
Matthew James King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Matthew Leachman v. Rick Thaler, Director
as 12-20187
Petitioner - Appellant:
MATTHEW JAMES LEACHMAN
Respondent - Appellee:
RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Matthew Faison v. United States Social Security
as 11-7290
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MATTHEW JAMES FAISON
Defendant - Appellee:
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Matthew Faison v. United States Social Security
as 11-7292
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MATTHEW JAMES FAISON
Defendant - Appellee:
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Faison v. United States Social Security Comm. et al
as 7:2011cv00429
Plaintiff:
Matthew James Faison
Defendant:
Miami Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm. and United States Social Security Comm.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Griffin v. Gonzales et al
as 2:2011cv00270
Plaintiff:
Matthew James Griffin
Defendant:
Fernando Gonzales, J Hill, R. Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Griffin v. Gonzales et al
as 1:2011cv00210
Plaintiff:
Matthew James Griffin
Defendant:
Fernando Gonzales, J Hill, R. Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Leachman v. Thaler
as 4:2011cv00212
Petitioner:
Matthew James Leachman
Respondent:
Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
