Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Pierce v. Marschke et al
as 3:2023cv08416
Plaintiff:
Michael Pierce
Defendant:
R Marschke, Diane Miller and GEO Group
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pierce v. Idaho State Correctional Center, et al.
as 1:2022cv00486
Plaintiff:
Brandon Michael Pierce
Defendant:
Idaho State Correctional Center, Idaho Department of Correction, C.O. Dodge and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pierce v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 6:2017cv00668
Petitioner:
Joseph Michael Pierce
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Thomas Pierce v. Subolt Shroff, et al
as 17-17118
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS MICHAEL PIERCE
Defendant - Appellee:
SUBOLT SHROFF, Doctor/ Medical Provider at A.S.P.C. Florence, CORIZON LLC, Health Care at Florence/ Eyman, CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden and others
Willis v. Foreman et al
as 2:2017cv00059
Plaintiff:
Averille Leon Willis
Defendant:
Norkesha Foreman, Jon Weddle, Gregg Cohen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pierce v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
as 3:2016cv00989
Plaintiff:
Damien Michael Pierce
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Pierce v. Shroff et al
as 2:2015cv00037
Plaintiff:
Thomas Michael Pierce
Defendant:
Subolt Shroff, Corizon LLC, Charles L Ryan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas Pierce v. Charles Ryan, et al
as 13-16998
Petitioner - Appellant:
THOMAS MICHAEL PIERCE
Respondent - Appellee:
CHARLES L. RYAN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Pierce v. Ryan et al
as 4:2013cv00560
Petitioner:
Thomas Michael Pierce
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Michael Pierce v. E. Sealey, et al
as 13-5136
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL PIERCE
Defendant - Appellee:
E. SEALEY, Officer and OFFICER PARNELL
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.
