Cases 81 - 90 of 195
Biggins v. Minner et al
as 1:2017cv01739
Plaintiff:
James Arthur Biggins
Defendant:
Matt Denn, Perry Phelps, Delaware Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cooks v. Rowe
as 3:2017cv03231
Petitioner:
James Arthur Cooks
Respondent:
Kelly Rowe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Cooks v. Rowe
as 5:2017cv00279
Petitioner:
James Arthur Cooks
Respondent:
Kelly Rowe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
James Couture v. David Berkebile, et al
as 17-35906
Petitioner - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR COUTURE
Respondent - Appellee:
DAVID BERKEBILE and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA
Biggins v. Denn et al
as 1:2017cv01537
Petitioner:
James Arthur Biggins
Respondent:
Matt Denn, Perry Phelps, Delaware Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
James Biggins v. Carl Danberg, et al
as 17-3030
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant - Appellee:
CARL C. DANBERG, Commissioner of Department of Corrections, DEPUTY WARDEN CHRISTOPHER KLIEN, Assistant Deputy to Commissioner, MICHAEL DELOY, Bureau of Prisons, Bureau Chief and others
James Cooks v. Greg Stevens, et al
as 17-11052
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR COOKS
Defendant - Appellee:
GREG STEVENS, JENNIFER BREAZEALE-GOSWICK, JUDGE MARK HOCKER and others
Smith v. Western Regional Jail
as 3:2017cv03502
Plaintiff:
James Arthur Smith, Jr.
Defendant:
Western Regional Jail , Davis and Diamond
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Arthur v. Parkland Hospital et al
as 3:2017cv01659
Plaintiff:
James Arthur
Defendant:
Parkland Hospital and Dallas County Sheriffs Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James Biggins v. Carl Danberg, et al
as 17-2319
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant:
CARL C. DANBERG, T. CARROLL, R. KEARNEY and others
Defendant - Appellee:
RONALD WILLEY, R. CARTER, E. HEDDINGER and others
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.
