Cases 121 - 130 of 242
United States of America v. Smith
as 1:2010cv00348
Plaintiff:
United States of America and United States of America
Defendant:
Curtis Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Remedies on motion attacking sentence
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv01172
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Sex Discrimination
Thatcher #384349 et al v. Eaton, County of et al
as 2:2009cv00272
Plaintiff:
Gary Alva Thatcher #384349, Mark Curtin #263758, Curtis Smith #292372 and others
Defendant:
Eaton, County of, Macomb, County of, Kent, County of and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Gary Thatcher, et al v. Timothy Greeley
as 09-2597
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GARY ALVA THATCHER, KELVIN DAVID MOFFIT, DAVID CLARK and others
Defendant - Appellee:
TIMOTHY P. GREELEY
Smith v. United States Department Of Justice et al
as 4:2009cv02565
Plaintiff:
Curtis Smith
Defendant:
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, J. T. Sharles and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Curtis Smith v. Timothy Bukowski, et al
as 09-3660
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CURTIS SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
TIMOTHY BUKOWSKI, MICHAEL D. DOWNEY, JAMES STEVENSON and others
Smith v. Social Security, Commissioner of
as 2:2009cv14197
Plaintiff:
Curtis Smith
Defendant:
Social Security, Commissioner of
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Type:
Other Statutes
Smith v. Kister
as 1:2009cv06626
Plaintiff:
Curtis Smith
Defendant:
Susan S Kister
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Finn et al
as 1:2009cv06627
Plaintiff:
Curtis Smith
Defendant:
Michael Finn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Rodgon
as 1:2009cv06628
Plaintiff:
Curtis Smith
Defendant:
Jack I. Rodgon
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.
