Cases 1 - 10 of 193
Ekman v. United States of America
as 4:2023cv00449
Petitioner:
David Scott Ekman
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
David Scofield v. USA
as 23-3867
Petitioner / Appellant:
DAVID SCOTT SCOFIELD
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Scofield v. USA
as 2:2023cv02661
Petitioner:
David Scott Scofield
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Bradbury et al v. Scott et al
as 2:2023cv02355
Plaintiff:
William F. Bradbury, Jr., Danny E. Starner, Christopher Ford and others
Defendant:
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), JPay/Securus Technologies, Viapath Technologies and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
David Peasley v. M. Spearman, et al
as 23-15471
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID SCOTT PEASLEY
Defendant / Appellee:
M. ELIOT SPEARMAN, Warden, D. BRIGHT, Chief Medical Officer, ZAHED AHMED, Doctor and others
Harrison v. Smith
as 3:2023cv01450
Petitioner:
David Scott Harrison
Respondent:
Oak Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Albers v. Hudson
as 5:2023cv03037
Petitioner:
David Scott Albers
Respondent:
D. Hudson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
David Peasley v. M. Spearman, et al
as 23-15177
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID SCOTT PEASLEY
Defendant / Appellee:
M. ELIOT SPEARMAN, Warden, D. BRIGHT, Chief Medical Officer, ZAHED AHMED, Doctor and others
Scott v. JSO PDF
as 3:2023cv00130
Plaintiff:
David Scott
Defendant:
JSO PDF
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ELLISON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 2:2022cv05001
Plaintiff:
TYRONE FUQUAN ELLISON
Defendant:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, VICTORIA L. KUHN, WILLIE BONDS and others
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.
