Cases 11 - 20 of 22
Essex v. U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of Kentucky et al.
as 5:2015cv00279
Plaintiff:
John Michael Essex
Defendant:
U.S. Marshal Service for the Eastern District of Kentucky , Roger Daniel , Jacob M. Frick and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Harris v. U.S. Marshal
as 6:2015cv00120
Plaintiff:
Christopher L. Harris
Defendant:
U.S. Marshal
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Borden et al v. U.S. Marshalls Office Service et al
as 1:2015cv00085
Petitioner:
Jason Dean Borden and Nancy S. Douglas
Respondent:
U.S. Marshalls Office Service and U.S. District Court
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Harris v. U.S. Marshal Service
as 6:2015cv00099
Petitioner:
Christopher Harris
Respondent:
U.S. Marshal Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Borden v. Hayse et al
as 1:2015cv00027
Plaintiff:
Jason Dean Borden
Defendant:
David Hayse, Park City Daily News, U.S. Marshall Staff and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Soyars et al v. United States of America et al
as 3:2014cv00629
Plaintiff:
Charlene K Soyars and Raymond Burch, Jr.
Defendant:
United States of America, Alex Wright, OTF and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Adams v. Ballard et al
as 5:2013cv00124
Plaintiff:
Charles Edward Adams, Jr.
Defendant:
Rodney Ballard, Fayette County Detention Center, Gary Blair and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davis v. United States Department of Justice
as 3:2012cv00064
Plaintiff:
Freeman Davis
Defendant:
United States Marshal Service and Unknown Deputy U.S. Marshals
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Profitt v. U.S. Marshal's Case
as 3:2010cv00310
Plaintiff:
Mike Profitt
Defendant:
U.S. Marshal's Case
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Coleman v. U.S. Marshal
as 3:2009cv00390
Petitioner:
Wardell Coleman
Respondent:
U.S. Marshal
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
