Cases 81 - 90 of 208
Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson
as 16-7357
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, ERIC L. PROSHA, JOHN KING and others
Defendant - Appellee:
DAVID ROBINSON, CURTIS WALL, M. VOSBURG and others
Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson
as 16-7361
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF
Defendant - Appellee:
DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Operations, VDOC, sued individually and in offical capacity, C. WALL, Prison Chaplin, GRCC, in offical and individual capacity, HAROLD CLARK, Director, VADOC, in his official and individual capacity and others
Bryant v. Puhl et al
as 1:2016cv03712
Plaintiff:
Hattie Mae Bryant
Defendant:
Todd Puhl, Pamela Monroe, Mark Richts and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Graham et al v. Parker et al
as 3:2016cv01954
Plaintiff:
Charles Graham and Russell L. Davis
Defendant:
Tony C. Parker, Marina Cadreche and Kenneth Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In re: Edwin Parker
as 16-14747
Petitioner:
In re: EDWIN C. PARKER
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
King v. Robinson et al
as 3:2016cv00164
Plaintiff:
John King
Defendant:
David Robinson, Curtis Wall, M. Vosburg and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sessoms v. Robinson et al
as 3:2016cv00166
Plaintiff:
Ryan Sessoms
Defendant:
David Robinson, Curtis Wall, M. Vosburg and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Prosha v. Robinson et al
as 3:2016cv00163
Plaintiff:
Eric L. Prosha
Defendant:
David Robinson, Curtis Wall, M. Vosburg and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Watson v. Robinson et al
as 3:2016cv00167
Plaintiff:
Ray Watson
Defendant:
David Robinson, Curtis Wall, M. Vosburg and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rosas v. Robinson et al
as 3:2016cv00165
Plaintiff:
Peter Rosas
Defendant:
David Robinson, Curtis Wall, M. Vosburg and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
