Cases 11 - 20 of 26
Elliott Williams v. Jeffrey Catoe, et al
as 18-40418
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ELLIOTT WILLIAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
JEFFREY CATOE, Senior Warden, Coffield Unit, WILLIAM WHEAT, Major of Security, Coffield Unit, PAMELA PACE, Practice Manager, UTMB, Coffield Unit and others
Williams v. Davis et al
as 6:2018cv00095
Plaintiff:
Elliott Williams
Defendant:
Lorie Davis, Jeffrey Catoe, Jhon Ellis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Catoe et al
as 6:2017cv00627
Plaintiff:
Elliott Williams
Defendant:
Jeffrey Catoe, William Wheat, Pamela Pace and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Randle v. Sloan et al
as 6:2017cv00459
Plaintiff:
Jerome Randle
Defendant:
J Sloan, Norris Jackson, Jeffrey Catoe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Washington v. Davis et al
as 6:2017cv00401
Plaintiff:
Keith Harry Washington
Defendant:
Lorie Davis, Gerald Richards, Akbar Shabazz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sanchez v. Catoe
as 3:2017cv00090
Respondent:
Jeffrey Catoe
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Petitioner:
Gilbert Sanchez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brooks v. Bell et al
as 6:2017cv00018
Plaintiff:
Charles David Brooks
Defendant:
Oliver J Bell, Brad Livingston, Kelvin Scott and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shawn Dunn v. Jeffrey Catoe, et al
as 16-41081
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHAWN L. DUNN
Defendant - Appellee:
JEFFREY CATOE, Warden, STUART CALHOUN, Assistant Warden, JOHN BECRAFT, Law Library Supervisor and others
Shawn Dunn v. Jeffrey Catoe, et al
as 16-40415
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHAWN L. DUNN
Defendant - Appellee:
JEFFREY CATOE, Warden, STUART CALHOUN, Assistant Warden, JOHN BECRAFT, Law Library Supervisor and others
Jeffrey Cato v. John Preslesnik
as 12-2045
Petitioner - Appellant:
JEFFREY CATO
Respondent - Appellee:
JOHN PRESLESNIK
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.
