Cases 31 - 40 of 517
Johnson v. Giles, et al
as 23-1096
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JABARI J. JOHNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
GILES, TONCHIE, CARPENTER and others
Dudley (ID 91359) v. Kansas Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2023cv03074
Plaintiff:
James Richard Dudley
Defendant:
Kansas Department of Corrections, Jeff Zmuda, Darcie Holthaus and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
United States v. Flores
as 23-6031
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
HERIBERTO FLORES
Montoya-Flores v. USA
as 2:2023cv00158
Petitioner:
Rodolfo Montoya-Flores
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Flores-Guerrero v. Quick et al
as 5:2023cv00196
Petitioner:
Pedro Flores-Guerrero
Respondent:
Christie Quick and Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (state)
Flores, et al v. Henderson, et al
as 23-1049
Plaintiff / Appellee:
LATARSHA FLORES and SAMUEL JACKSON, individually and as representativesof the Estate of Shamikle Jackson, and as next friends of N.J., successor in interest
Defendant / Appellant:
JUSTIN HENDERSON, individually, KEITH MATTHEWS, individually, TONEY HANNON, individually and others
United States v. Sandoval-Flores
as 23-4019
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
JULIAN SANDOVAL-FLORES
Johnson v. Rumph, et al
as 23-1028
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JABARI J. JOHNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
RUMPH, PAPPAY, FLORES and others
Johnson v. Rumph et al
as 1:2022cv03319
Plaintiff:
Jabri J. Johnson and Jabari J. Johnson
Defendant:
Rumph, Pappay, Flores and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Buitimea v. Quik et al
as 1:2022cv02981
Plaintiff:
Julio Flores Buitimea
Defendant:
Dusty Quik and Jared Iungerich
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
