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
Philip Grigsby v. Catricia Howard, et al
as 22-16180
Petitioner / Appellant:
PHILIP ANDRA GRIGSBY
Respondent / Appellee:
CATRICIA HOWARD, A. TORRES, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, G. MERRELL, Incident Report Investigator and others
Grigsby v. Howard et al
as 4:2021cv00266
Petitioner:
Philip Andra Grigsby
Respondent:
Catricia Howard, A Torres, G Merrell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Cobb v. Howard et al
as 4:2021cv00241
Defendant:
J Cox, V Ramsey, K Werner and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Cobb
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jackson-Bey v. Whelton et al
as 4:2020cv00005
Defendant:
B Byler, C Cole and S Whelton
Plaintiff:
Haneef Shakeel Jackson-Bey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
BROWN et al v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2009cv02000
Petitioner:
TIMOTHY DEMITRI BROWN
Respondent:
Federal Bureau Of Prisons, LAPPIN, R. S. BALLASH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BROWN et al v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2009cv01663
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY DEMITRI BROWN
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, LAPPIN, R. S. BALLASH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brown v. Federal Bureau Prisons et al
as 4:2009cv00103
Plaintiff:
Timothy Brown
Defendant:
Federal Bureau Prisons, USA, B. Byler 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.
