Cases 111 - 120 of 3,123
Murzike v. McKinney et al
as 3:2024cv00136
Plaintiff:
James T. Murzike
Defendant:
B. McKinney, Officer Burnette, Secules and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PITTMAN v. UNITED STATES
as 2:2024cv00042
Petitioner:
STEVEN PITTMAN, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Murzike v. Pittman et al
as 3:2024cv00131
Plaintiff:
James T. Murzike
Defendant:
C. Pittman and Ms. Young
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rich v. Stephens County, et al
as 24-6016
Plaintiff:
J.T. RICH
Defendant:
STEPHENS COUNTY, DEXTER LAWLEY, individual capacity as captain and internal affairs officer, CHEYENNE UNDERWOOD, individual capacity as Public Defender for Stephens County and others
Pittman v. Evans et al
as 2:2024cv00012
Plaintiff:
Bobby James Pittman
Defendant:
Evans, John Doe and Estrada
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Ricardo Pittman v. USPS, et al
as 24-1088
Plaintiff:
RICARDO PITTMAN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and others
Gabriel Pittman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 24-1122
Plaintiff:
GABRIEL ISHAM PITTMAN
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, JOHN RIVELLO, SCI Huntingdon Facility Manager and B. BEISH, SCI Huntingdon AA Block Unit Manager
Bowen v. Prock et al
as 3:2024cv00077
Plaintiff:
Gabriel Nathaniel Bowen
Defendant:
Prock, Pittman, Hill and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lynch v. Matterport, Inc, et al.
as 24-188
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHAWN LYNCH
Defendant / Appellee:
MATTERPORT, INC, RJ PITTMAN, DAVE GAUSEBECK and others
PITTMAN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 2:2024cv00170
Plaintiff:
MARLENE V. PITTMAN
Defendant:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, PHIL MURPHY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
