Cases 1 - 10 of 200
Crawford et al v. McKinley et al
as 3:2024cv00246
Plaintiff:
Lawrence L. Crawford, Jonah Gabriel JahJah T. Tishbite, Alton Chisolm and others
Defendant:
Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., The United States Congress, The United States Senate and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 bv Bivens Non-Prisoner
Bradley v. Gomez et al
as 6:2023cv00149
Plaintiff:
Edward Lee Bradley, Jr.
Defendant:
Christopher Gomez, Brandon Perry, Patti Ann Land and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Proctor v. Gilley et al
as 6:2022cv00198
Plaintiff:
Marcus A. Proctor
Defendant:
T. Gilley, H. Ray, T. Bowles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Barnett v. USA
as 5:2022cv00232
Petitioner:
Robert H. Barnett
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Bell v. Joyner et al
as 7:2022cv00096
Plaintiff:
Marti E. Bell
Defendant:
H. Joyner, Melvin, Herley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Hendrickson et al
as 6:2022cv00165
Plaintiff:
Daniel H. Jones
Defendant:
Kent Hendrickson, Glenn E. Acree, Christopher Nickell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Joyner et al
as 7:2022cv00082
Petitioner:
Derrick Smith
Respondent:
H. Joyner, D. Altizer, Crum and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Proctor v. Gilley et al
as 5:2022cv00107
Plaintiff:
Marcus A. Proctor
Defendant:
T. Gilley, H. Ray, T. Bowles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Werman v. Joyner et al
as 2:2022cv00090
Plaintiff:
Alfred Werman
Defendant:
Warden H. Joyner, Psycology Dr. Lefever, Mr. Melvin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Werman v. Joyner et al
as 7:2022cv00071
Plaintiff:
Alfred Werman
Defendant:
H. Joyner, Dr. Lefever, Mr. Melvin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
