Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Welsh v. Diaz et al
as 5:2022cv00237
Plaintiff:
Lonnie Kade Welsh
Defendant:
Misty Diaz, Chris Weston, Craig Thompson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Michael Armstrong v. City of Belleville, et al
as 15-1844
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL ARMSTRONG
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF BELLEVILLE, DANA YOAKUM, Officer, GARY BECKER, Sergeant and others
Armstrong v. Zickfoose et al
as 1:2013cv02815
Plaintiff:
Michael Armstrong
Defendant:
Donna Zickfoose, Robert Sumners, Ann Burns and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Armstrong v. Unknown Party et al
as 3:2012cv01171
Plaintiff:
Michael Armstrong
Defendant:
Unknown Party, City of Belleville and Metro Bus Company
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ARMSTRONG v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2012cv02030
Petitioner:
MICHAEL ARMSTRONG
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
COLLINS v. WEBSTER et al
as 2:2010cv00172
Defendant:
MICHAEL ARMSTRONG, JULIE BEIGHLEY and DR. THOMAS WEBSTER
Plaintiff:
BOBBY RAY COLLINS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Vantice Beshears v. Thomas Webster, et al
as 10-2380
Plaintiff - Appellant:
VANTICE L. BESHEARS
Defendant - Appellee:
THOMAS WEBSTER, Doctor, WILLIAM WILSON, JOE WILLIAMS and others
Bobby Ray Collins v. Thomas Webster, et al
as 10-2317
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BOBBY R. COLLINS
Defendant - Appellee:
THOMAS WEBSTER, Doctor and MICHAEL ARMSTRONG, Physician's Assistant
COLLINS et al v. LAPPIN et al
as 2:2009cv00247
Plaintiff:
BOBBY RAY COLLINS
Defendant:
HARLEY LAPPIN, MICHAEL NALLEY, HELEN MARBERRY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SPENCER v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 2:2008cv00007
Plaintiff:
DAVID RICHARD SPENCER
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, BEZY, R COOPER 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.
