Cases 1 - 10 of 437
Gorbey v. Doe et al
as 6:2024cv00072
Plaintiff:
Michael S. Gorbey, Tsunami Khan and Chief Michael S. Gorbey
Defendant:
John or Jane Doe, Mr. Stoval, Tony Shult and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Garvester Bracken v. State of Missouri, et al
as 24-2135
Plaintiff:
Garvester Bracken
Defendant:
State of Missouri, Calea Stovall Reid, Judge and Joan L. Moriarty, Judge
Leodis Randle v. Eric Higgins, et al
as 24-1711
Plaintiff:
Leodis Randle
Defendant:
Eric Higgins, Does, Agents, Dyer, 12th Street Police Officer, Major and others
Stovall v. Henry
as 6:2024cv06035
Plaintiff:
Vandy D. Stovall and Black
Defendant:
Dr Guy Henry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stovall v. Warden of SCI-Muncy et al
as 2:2024cv01839
Petitioner:
ARCELIA TRUMAINE STOVALL
Respondent:
Warden of SCI-Muncy and PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bracken v. State of Missouri et al
as 4:2024cv00586
Plaintiff:
Garvester Bracken
Defendant:
State of Missouri, Calea Stovall-Reid and Joan L. Moriarty
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STOVALL v. VANIHEL et al
as 2:2024cv00146
Plaintiff:
DANIEL C. STOVALL
Defendant:
VANIHEL and WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STOVALL v. VANIHEL et al
as 2:2024cv00144
Plaintiff:
DANIEL C. STOVALL
Defendant:
VANIHEL, BOBBIE RIGGS, BURD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stovall v. Warden of SCI-Muncy et al
as 1:2024cv00343
Petitioner:
Arcelia Trumaine Stovall
Respondent:
Warden of SCI-Muncy and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brandon Johnson v. Larry Haskell, et al
as 24-1156
Plaintiff:
BRANDON L. JOHNSON
Defendant:
LARRY HASKELL, Sergeant and BRANDON STOVALL, Sergeant
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.
