Cases 31 - 40 of 66
STUDY v. MEYER et al
as 3:2014cv00364
Plaintiff:
JOHN STUDY
Defendant:
TODD MEYER, KEN CAMPBELL, MATTHEW KINCAID and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. POVALERI et al
as 2:2014cv00220
Plaintiff:
CHARLES DAVIS
Defendant:
TAMI HINES, CHRIS D. MONROE and GAIL POVALERI
Miscellaneou:
WVCF (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
United States of America v. Davis
as 3:2014cv50123
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Charles Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Hamis Chande v. Raymond Moore, et al
as 14-50542
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HAMIS ATHOMAN CHANDE
Defendant - Appellee:
RAYMOND DARRYL MOORE, CHARLES, CITY OF WACO POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Davis v. Nelson et al
as 3:2013cv03047
Plaintiff:
Charles Davis
Defendant:
Dewayne Nelson and Iowa Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. Nevens et al
as 2:2013cv01380
Plaintiff:
Charles Davis
Defendant:
NDOC/OMD, Jenny Nash and Dwight Nevens
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davis v. Wallace
as 4:2013cv01197
Petitioner:
Robert Charles Davis
Respondent:
Ian Wallace
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Harold Strickland v. Dr. Mark Militiana
as 13-6914
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HAROLD E. STRICKLAND
Defendant - Appellee:
DR. MARK MILITIANA, GAYLE HARRIS, RN, R. SUTTERFIELD and others
Defendant:
REGIONAL OMBUDSMAN A. K. BRYANT, CHARLES DAVIS, Regional Ombudsman, MALCOLM TAYLOR, Regional Ombudsman and others
Davis v. SCI Coal Township et al
as 3:2013cv00623
Petitioner:
Charles Davis
Respondent:
SCI Coal Township and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Chande v. Moore et al
as 6:2013cv00073
Plaintiff:
Hamis Athoman Chande
Defendant:
FNU Charles, Charles Davis, Officer FNU James and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
