Cases 31 - 40 of 182
Rodgers v. Farris
as 5:2022cv00971
Plaintiff:
Christopher Daniel Rodgers
Defendant:
Commander Farris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Taylor v. Reese et al
as 1:2022cv00032
Plaintiff:
Christopher Daniel Taylor and Christopher Daniel Montrell Taylor
Defendant:
Michelle Reese, Department of Corrections, Iowa Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Marrs v. City of Imperial et al
as 3:2022cv00180
Petitioner:
Christopher Daniel Marrs
Respondent:
Imperial, City of, City of Imperial Police Department, Dennis Morita and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cv
Gay v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
as 3:2021cv00933
Petitioner:
Christopher Daniel Gay
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Marrs v. City of Imperial et al
as 4:2021cv09233
Plaintiff:
Christopher Daniel Marrs
Defendant:
City of Imperial, City of Imperial Police Department, Dennis Morita and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Daniel v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv05890
Plaintiff:
Christopher Daniel
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Daryl Jones v. Christopher Daniels
as 21-7549
Petitioner / Appellant:
DARYL LAMONT JONES
Respondent / Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER DANIELS, Commonwealth District Attorney
SPADACCINI v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv53645
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER DANIEL SPADACCINI
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
FOUCHT v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv37152
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER DANIEL FOUCHT
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jones v. Daniels
as 2:2021cv00330
Petitioner:
Daryl Lamont Jones
Respondent:
Christopher Daniels
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
