Cases 61 - 70 of 71
Dunwoody v. Drew et al
as 1:2009cv00937
Plaintiff:
William Thatcher Dunwoody
Defendant:
D B Drew, T Garrow and M B White
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Dunwoody v. Drew et al
as 5:2009cv00222
Plaintiff:
William Thatcher Dunwoody
Defendant:
D. B. Drew, T. Garrow and M. B. White
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Valdez v. Forte et al
as 1:2009cv00533
Plaintiff:
John Valdez
Defendant:
T. Forte, M. Gonder, E. Ramirez and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Shaka Muhammad v. V. Brumfield, et al
as 09-15148
Petitioner - Appellant:
SHAKA SENEGAL MUHAMMAD
Defendant - Appellee:
V. D. BRUMFIELD, M. B. MILES, ABUL RA'OOF NASIR and others
Washington v. Grace et al
as 4:2008cv01283
Plaintiff:
Henry Unseld Washington
Defendant:
James L. Grace, David J. Wakefield, R. M. Lawler and others
Amicu:
G C Berger
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Muhammad v. Brumfield et al
as 2:2008cv00785
Plaintiff:
Shaka Muhammad
Defendant:
V D Brumfield, M B Miles and Abul Ra'oof Nasir
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 08-6141
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
ALLEN v. MCDONOUGH et al
as 4:2007cv00469
Plaintiff:
DERRICK ALLEN
Defendant:
JAMES R MCDONOUGH, RICHARD SCHLAF, J LONG and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BECKER v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO et al
as 2:2007cv03753
Petitioner:
JAN F. BECKER
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO, MARC DANN, J. PETRO and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Walker v. Williams et al
as 9:2007cv00110
Plaintiff:
David Lee Walker
Defendant:
Fredrick Stephane Williams, Jim Burns and M B Blackman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
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.
