Cases 11 - 20 of 94
Cavalieri v. Boyers et al
as 7:2023cv00092
Plaintiff:
David Edward Cavalieri
Defendant:
Ms. C. Shanks, A. David Robinson, Stacy Meinhard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
David Cavalieri v. Commonwealth of Virginia
as 23-6072
Petitioner / Appellant:
DAVID EDWARD CAVALIERI
Respondent / Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
De Vere v. USA
as 1:2023cv00112
Petitioner:
David Edward De Vere
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
RICKER v. ESTOCK et al
as 2:2023cv00084
Petitioner:
DAVID EDWARD RICKER
Respondent:
L. J. ESTOCK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DAUPHIN COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Anderson v. Mobley et al
as 1:2022cv02770
Plaintiff:
David Edward Anderson
Defendant:
Shawn Mobley, Otero County Jail, Under Sheriff and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wood v. Lumpkin
as 7:2022cv00204
Petitioner:
David Edward Wood
Respondent:
Bryan Collier and Director, TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Perez v. Lumpkin et al
as 1:2022cv00123
Plaintiff:
Roberto Perez
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Matthew Steel, Cody McGallion and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Perez v. Lumpkin et al
as 9:2022cv00052
Plaintiff:
Roberto Perez
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Matthew Steel, Cody McGallion and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv00267
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Couch v. Scott et al
as 3:2021cv05804
Plaintiff:
Anthony Lynn Couch, Sr
Defendant:
Rick Scott, Brad Johanson, Travis Davis 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.
