Cases 1 - 10 of 1,106
Russell v. Richison et al
as 5:2024cv00502
Plaintiff:
Ryan Russell
Defendant:
Chad Richison, Chris Thomas, Craig E. Boelte and others
Bethea v. City of Tulsa Oklahoma, The et al
as 4:2024cv00214
Plaintiff:
Ralph C Bethea
Defendant:
City of Tulsa Oklahoma, The, City of Tulsa Attorney General, The, State of Oklahoma, The and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Fields v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 5:2024cv00252
Plaintiff:
Andrew Fields, III
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, John Doe, D Nye and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Angel v. Richison et al
as 5:2024cv00458
Plaintiff:
Kandy Angel
Defendant:
Chad Richison, Henry C. Duques, Robert J. Levenson and others
Daly v. Cole
as 5:2024cv00445
Petitioner:
Richard Daly
Respondent:
D. C. Cole
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thomsen v. Armfield et al
as 5:2024cv00226
Plaintiff:
William C Thomsen
Defendant:
Cory Armfield and New Cordell City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bowen v. ALI Torabi, D.D.S., P.L.L.C.
as 4:2024cv00173
Plaintiff:
C Jeffery Bowen
Defendant:
Ali Torabi, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. doing business as Flawless Smile Dentistry
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Thomas v. Tulsa County Sheriff et al
as 4:2024cv00102
Plaintiff:
Bryon C Thomas and Byron C Thomas
Defendant:
Tulsa County Sheriff, United States Marshals, Joey Poffel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Purdy v. Harpe
as 5:2024cv00348
Petitioner:
Aaron C Purdy
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hopper v. County of Tulsa et al
as 4:2024cv00048
Plaintiff:
Keith-Dewane Hopper
Defendant:
County of Tulsa, Vic Regalado, S Holloway and others
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.
