Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Kevin Watson v. Steve Kallis
as 23-3309
Petitioner / Appellant:
KEVIN WATSON
Respondent / Appellee:
STEVE KALLIS, Warden
WATSON v. KALLIS
as 2:2023cv00449
Petitioner:
KEVIN WATSON
Respondent:
S. KALLIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Walker v. Town of Woodbury et al
as 7:2023cv06363
Plaintiff:
Darrell Walker
Defendant:
Town of Woodbury, TOWN SUPERVISOR Thomas J. Burke, COUNCILMEMBER KATHRYN LUCIANI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
WATSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2023cv00091
Plaintiff:
KEVIN WATSON
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, T. TAYLOR, TRACEY JOSLYN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
US v. Kevin McClary
as 23-6182
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
KEVIN WATSON MCCLARY
Terrence Hammock v. Officer Phillip Andoh
as 22-7159
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TERRENCE EDWARD HAMMOCK, JR.
Defendant / Appellee:
OFFICER PHILLIP ANDOH
Defendant:
GAIL WATTS, SERGEANT ANTHONY DUPREE, OFFICER KEVIN WATSON and others
Sandoval v. Billingsly et al
as 5:2020cv05215
Defendant:
Officer John Billingsly, Detective John Mackey and Agent Kevin Watson
Plaintiff:
Neftal Rodriguez Sardoval and Neftal Rodriguez Sandoval
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WATSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE BRIAN CZARNECKI et al
as 2:2020cv01592
Plaintiff:
KEVIN WATSON
Defendant:
CLERK OF THE COURT JOSHUA LEWIS and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE BRIAN CZARNECKI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
WATSON v. HARPER
as 2:2020cv00382
Petitioner:
KEVIN WATSON
Respondent:
U.S. MARSHALLS and ORLANDO HARPER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
WATSON v. HARPER
as 2:2020cv01056
Respondent:
WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER and U.S. MARSHALLS
Petitioner:
KEVIN WATSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
