Cases 71 - 80 of 215
FAGAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv03237
Plaintiff:
TINSLEY FAGAN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0157
Tinsley v. USA
as 1:2016cv00070
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
James B. Tinsley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Tommy Green, Sr. v. Julie Jones, et al
as 16-11570
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TOMMY L. GREEN, SR.
Defendant - Appellee:
JULIE JONES, ERIC GONZALEZ, Assistant Attorney General, S. TINSLEY and others
Johns v. Wexford Health Sources et al
as 1:2016cv01106
Plaintiff:
Dwaine Johns
Defendant:
Wexford Health Sources, Jennifer Tinsley, Jane Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lynn v. Goddard, et al
as 16-3067
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PATRICK C. LYNN
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHNNIE GODDARD, SAM CLINE, JOHN LANGFORD and others
Anthony Boyce v. Illinois Department of Correct, et al
as 16-1710
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTHONY BOYCE
Defendant - Appellee:
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, JENNIFER TINSLEY and others
Tinsley v. South Carolina Department of Probation Parole and Pardon Services et al
as 2:2016cv00996
Plaintiff:
James Tinsley
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Probation Parole and Pardon Services, Nikki Haley, Larry Ray Patton, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tinsley v. Henderson County Circuit Court
as 4:2016cv00027
Plaintiff:
Clyde Tinsley
Defendant:
Henderson County Circuit Court
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tinsley v. Bolds et al
as 4:2016cv00026
Plaintiff:
Clyde Tinsley
Defendant:
Craig Bolds, City of Morganfield, Kentucky and Union County
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Boyce v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2016cv01028
Defendant:
Illinois Department of Corrections, Wexford Health Source Inc, Jennifer Tinsley and others
Plaintiff:
Anthony Boyce
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.
