Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Daniel Cobb v. Catricia Howard, et al
as 23-15567
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANIEL COBB
Defendant / Appellee:
CATRICIA HOWARD, Complex warden at USP-Tucson, K WERNER, SOMP Coordinator/ Psychologist at USP-Tucson, L UNRUH-PARKER, SOMP Psychologist at USP-Tucson and others
Daniel Cobb v. Catricia Howard, et al
as 22-16725
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANIEL COBB
Defendant / Appellee:
CATRICIA HOWARD, Complex warden at USP-Tucson, K WERNER, SOMP Coordinator/ Psychologist at USP-Tucson, L UNRUH-PARKER, SOMP Psychologist at USP-Tucson and others
Michael Owlfeather-Gorbey v. Vest
as 22-6407
Plaintiff / Appellant:
(CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWLFEATHER-GORBEY
Defendant / Appellee:
VEST, PA, FCI Beckley Medical, EDWARDS, DR, FCI Beckley Medical, FAIN, HSA FCI Beckley Medical and others
Russell May v. Eric Bradley, et al
as 20-1729
Defendant:
COUNSELOR M. NAGLIC, CASE MANAGER J. SPEILVOGEL, J. RICHARDSON, Trust Fund Supervisor and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RUSSELL THOMAS MAY
Terence Sasaki v. Mark Inch, et al
as 19-16519
Defendant / Appellee:
DUTTON, C/O, FSL - Elkton, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY CLERK(S), NERO, SCHMIDT, CSO, FSL - Elkton and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TERENCE SASAKI
Sasaki v. Inch et al
as 1:2018cv00270
Defendant:
David J. Bruce, Walter Williams, J. Ray Ormond and others
Plaintiff:
Terence Sasaki
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Harvey Johnson v. Martin, et al
as 18-10836
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HARVEY R. JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee:
MARTIN, Unit Manager, JOHN DOE, Administrative Remedy Clerk between 6/28/13 - 7/29/13, JOHN DOE, Administrative Remedy Coordinator between 6/28/13 - 7/29/13 and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 08-61088
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2008cv00205
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
