Cases 11 - 20 of 109
Hardin v. Roach et al
as 3:2023cv00137
Plaintiff:
Charlie L Hardin
Defendant:
FNU Roach, FNU Albright, FNU Crowe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MEYERS v. GERNEGEN et al
as 1:2022cv01067
Plaintiff:
DAVID MEYERS
Defendant:
MS. BALRUS PERRIGAN GERNEGEN, MARCUS SCOTT, CAPTAIN MR. INGRAM and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HARDIN v. PEAKE et al
as 1:2022cv00691
Plaintiff:
CHARLIE L. HARDIN
Defendant:
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH JOI PEAKE, KATY POOLE, OFFICER WILEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hardin v. Everett et al
as 5:2022ct03255
Plaintiff:
Charlie L. Hardin
Defendant:
D. Everett, Captain Turley, C/O Mullen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
THOMPSON v. USA
as 1:2022cv00578
Petitioner:
CHARLIE THOMPSON
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
ALLEN v. SUGG et al
as 1:2022cv00510
Plaintiff:
DERRICK ALLEN, SR.
Defendant:
SAM SUGG, CHARLIE SCHAEFER and WELLS FARGO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
HARDIN v. PEAKE
as 1:2022cv00508
Plaintiff:
CHARLIE L. HARDIN
Defendant:
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH JOI PEAKE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Watson v. Thomas et al
as 5:2022ct03132
Plaintiff:
Darius Watson
Defendant:
Charlie Thomas, Martin Wasielewski, Rebecca Brigman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pike v. Catawba County DSS et al
as 5:2022cv00041
Plaintiff:
Nathan Pike
Defendant:
Catawba County DSS, Vernon W. Pike, Barbar S. Pike and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MEYERS v. HAMPTON et al
as 1:2022cv00150
Plaintiff:
DAVID MEYERS
Defendant:
DHO REGINA HAMPTON, SGT. MS. NEALLY, CAPTAIN MR. COVINGTON 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.
