Cases 21 - 30 of 36
White v. Bureau of Prisons, et al
as 4:2010cv02164
Plaintiff:
Charles White
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons, United States of America, Warden Shartle and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles White v. Harley Lappin
as 10-5263
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Charles White
Defendant - Appellee:
Harley G. Lappin, Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons - In his official capacity
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 10-2571
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
White v. Uttecht
as 2:2010cv05076
Plaintiff:
Charles White
Defendant:
Jeffrey A Uttecht
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles White v. Edwin Buss, et al
as 10-2493
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES WHITE
Defendant - Appellee:
EDWIN G. BUSS, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction in his official capacity and MARK E. LEVENHAGEN, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison in his individual and personal capacity
White v. Suneja et al
as 3:2010cv00332
Plaintiff:
Charles White
Defendant:
Doctor Suneja, Linda A Foutch, Lieutenant Ziegler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
White v. Buss et al
as 3:2010cv00100
Defendant:
Edwin G Buss and Mark Levenhagen
Plaintiff:
Charles White
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
White v. Smith
as 1:2010cv00023
Petitioner:
Charles White
Respondent:
Keith Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rodney White v. City of Blytheville, et al
as 09-3851
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Rodney Charles White
Defendant - Appellee:
City of Blytheville, Blytheville Police Department, Terry Winkle, Officer, Blytheville Police Department and others
White v. Blytheville, City of et al
as 3:2009cv00202
Plaintiff:
Rodney Charles White, Sr
Defendant:
Blytheville, City of, Blytheville Police Department, Terry Winkle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
