Cases 21 - 30 of 74
Jackson #097561 v. Arizona, State of et al
as 2:2017cv03840
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Jackson
Defendant:
Arizona, State of, Arizona Department of Corrections, Stacey Crabtree and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Suggs et al v. Express Courier International, Inc. et al
as 5:2017cv05100
Plaintiff:
Janice Suggs , Chris Averette , Joshua Burrus and others
Defendant:
Express Courier International, Inc. and EMP LSO Holding Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Nathaniel Jackson v. Bradley Schluter, et al
as 17-2058
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NATHANIEL JACKSON
Defendant - Appellee:
BRADLEY J. SCHLUTER, NEIL FLANNERY and DANVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER
Suggs et al v. Express Courier International, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv00275
Plaintiff:
Chris Averette, Joshua Burrus, Traci Calbert and others
Defendant:
EMP LSO Holding Corporation and Express Courier International, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
Jackson v. Bibb County Correctional Facility et al
as 7:2017cv00452
Plaintiff:
Rodrick Nathaniel Jackson, Jr
Defendant:
Bibb County Correctional Facility, Willie Thomas, Deborah Toney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nathaniel Jackson v. Superintendent Greene SCI, et al
as 16-3628
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NATHANIEL JACKSON
Defendant - Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT GREENE SCI, WEXFORD MEDICAL CONTRACTOR, M.D. BYANAHAK JIN and others
Jackson v. Schluter et al
as 2:2016cv02225
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Jackson
Defendant:
Bradley J Schluter, . Flannery, John Petersen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nathaniel Jackson v. Alton Angus, et al
as 16-1888
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NATHANIEL JACKSON
Defendant - Appellee:
JOSE MATHEWS, ALTON ANGUS, MICHAEL P. MELVIN and others
Jackson v. USA
as 4:2016cv00032
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
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.
