Cases 21 - 30 of 36
Charles Jackson v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 17-11200
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES ALFRED JACKSON
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Alfred Copeland v. Charles Ryan, et al
as 16-15849
Petitioner - Appellee:
ALFRED COPELAND, AKA Charles Alfred Copeland
Respondent - Appellant:
CHARLES L. RYAN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Jackson v. Carter
as 4:2016cv00128
Petitioner:
Charles Alfred Jackson
Respondent:
William Stephens, Director, TDCJ-ID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jackson v. Carter
as 1:2016cv00023
Petitioner:
Charles Alfred Jackson
Respondent:
Christopher Carter
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HILL v. MILLS RANSOM
as 1:2016cv00018
Plaintiff:
CHARLES ALFRED HILL
Defendant:
STAR LEE MILLS RANSOM
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
HILL v. FIRST HEALTH RICHMOND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al
as 1:2015cv00826
Plaintiff:
CHARLES ALFRED HILL
Defendant:
FIRST HEALTH RICHMOND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, JOHN BRIDGMAN and TONYA MCCALL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Alfred v. U S P Pollock
as 1:2014cv02714
Plaintiff:
Charles Alfred
Defendant:
Warden U S P Pollock
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Bentley v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2014cv05324
Plaintiff:
Charles Alfred Bentley, II
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv00875
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
USA v. Charles Waddel
as 12-50038
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
CHARLES ALFRED WADDEL, also known as Alfred Charles Waddel, Jr., also known as A. C. Waddel, also known as Alfrd Waddel, also known as Alfred C. Waddel, also known as A. C. Waddel, Jr., also known as Alfred Waddle, also known as Alfred C. Waddle, Jr., als
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.
