Cases 31 - 40 of 73
Clarence Miller v. Willie Eagleton
as 17-6426
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CLARENCE SCOTT MILLER
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIE L. EAGLETON
WILLIAMS v. RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF N.J. et al
as 1:2017cv01797
Plaintiff:
JOHN L. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF N.J., UNIVERSITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE (UCHC), UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY (UMDNJ) and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Miller v. USA
as 1:2016cv01130
Petitioner:
Justin Scott Miller
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Lawrence v. Miller, Esq. et al
as 6:2016cv00862
Plaintiff:
Michael A. Lawrence
Defendant:
Scott Miller, Esq. and Jeffrey E. Lewis, Esq.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clarence Miller v. Kimberly Garvin
as 16-6604
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CLARENCE SCOTT MILLER
Defendant - Appellee:
SGT KIMBERLY GARVIN, a/k/a Kimberly Garvin and DHO MR. ERNEST ROWE
Defendant:
DENNIS PATTERSON, Region 2 Deputy Director and WARDEN MR. STEVENSON
Reynolds v. Morrison et al
as 4:2015cv00462
Plaintiff:
Tyler Lothaire Reynolds
Defendant:
Judy Morrison, Mike Schierbrock, Jay Nelson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PADRO v. SHAKIR et al
as 3:2015cv07096
Plaintiff:
FRANK PADRO
Defendant:
AHMAR SHAKIR, SCOTT MILLER, ANNE PEREGMON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Miller v. Eagleton
as 6:2015cv03726
Petitioner:
Clarence Scott Miller
Respondent:
Willie Eagleton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Williams v. Mapes et al
as 4:2015cv00249
Plaintiff:
Edward Lee Williams
Defendant:
Terry Mapes, Larry Lipscomb and Scott Miller
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SANCHEZ v. EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON et al
as 2:2015cv01879
Plaintiff:
EDWIN SANCHEZ
Defendant:
EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON, DR. AHMAR SHAKIR, DR. ELMIRA KAPCHITS 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.
