Cases 121 - 130 of 488
Schefflin v. Jackson
as 3:2022cv05364
Petitioner:
Philip Ira Schefflin
Respondent:
Joseph James Anthony Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Innes v. Jackson
as 2:2022cv00118
Petitioner:
Izaac Jermel Innes
Respondent:
Rob Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hill v. Fisch et al
as 3:2022cv05320
Plaintiff:
Robert Jesse Hill
Defendant:
Lisa Fisch, Andrew Stabitz, Sarah Bannister and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lee v. Mountain Licenses LP
as 2:2022cv00102
Plaintiff:
Jackson Lee
Defendant:
Mountain Licenses LP doing business as Fox 28
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501 Copyright Infringement
Jackson v. Atkins et al
as 3:2022cv05304
Plaintiff:
Bryce A Jackson
Defendant:
Chuck Atkins, Barnett, Bishop and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Blakely v. Jackson et al
as 2:2022cv00089
Petitioner:
Ralph Howard Blakely
Respondent:
Rob Jackson and Robert W Ferguson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Miles v. Pierce County Jail et al
as 3:2022cv05247
Plaintiff:
Taylor Christopher Miles
Defendant:
Pierce County Jail, Douglas Watkins, G Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Madison v. Pierce County Jail et al
as 3:2022cv05246
Plaintiff:
Travis Arthor Madison
Defendant:
Pierce County Jail, Douglas Watkins, G Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Linville v. Jackson
as 3:2022cv05241
Petitioner:
Kenneth Alfred Linville, Jr
Respondent:
Robert Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Demos v. Jackson
as 4:2022cv05045
Petitioner:
John Robert Demos
Respondent:
Robert M Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
