Cases 11 - 20 of 107
James Kendrick v. FBI
as 22-5271
Plaintiff / Appellant:
James Dean Kendrick
Defendant / Appellee:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
JONES v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
as 5:2022cv00245
Petitioner:
JAMES DEAN JONES
Respondent:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Underhile v. Ross et al
as 3:2022cv03037
Plaintiff:
James Dean Underhile
Defendant:
Sheriff Jim Ross, Administrator James Lookingbill, John or Jane Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
KENDRICK v. RECORDS ACCESS OFFICER et al
as 1:2022cv01789
Plaintiff:
JAMES DEAN KENDRICK
Defendant:
RECORDS ACCESS OFFICER, DIRECTOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
Dean #292046 v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2022cv00346
Plaintiff:
Bryson James Dean
Defendant:
Arizona Department of Corrections and David Shinn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nichols v. Dean et al
as 2:2022cv00438
Plaintiff:
Gibreel H. Nichols
Defendant:
James Dean, Richard Chvala, Cynthia Ruth and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Vanderpool v. Cleavenger et al
as 5:2021cv06129
Plaintiff:
James Dean Vanderpool
Defendant:
Victor Cleavenger and Judge Gary A Fenner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Vanderpool v. Parsons et al
as 5:2021cv06075
Plaintiff:
James Dean Vanderpool
Defendant:
Mike Parsons, T McGinley, Cleavenger and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KENDRICK v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
as 1:2021cv01624
Plaintiff:
JAMES DEAN KENDRICK
Defendant:
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Dean v. Hawkins et al
as 5:2020ct03343
Defendant:
C/O Ross, Sgt. Wilson, Eldridge Walker and others
Plaintiff:
Willie James Dean, Jr.
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.
