Cases 1 - 10 of 86
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
Jackson v. Hicks et al
as 5:2024cv00267
Plaintiff:
Corey Jackson
Defendant:
Jason Hicks, Cortnie Siess, Melody Harper and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Goff v. Crow et al
as 5:2023cv01158
Plaintiff:
Antoine Goff
Defendant:
Scott Crow, Amber Martin, Mark Bowen and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Bowens v. Rogers County Sheriffs Office
as 5:2023cv01054
Plaintiff:
Don Bowens
Defendant:
Rogers County Sheriffs Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Verdin v. Bowen
as 5:2023cv00812
Petitioner:
Rick Adam Verdin
Respondent:
Mark Bowen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Goff v. Crow et al
as 5:2023cv00584
Plaintiff:
Antoine Goff
Defendant:
Scott Crow, Amber Martin, Mark Bowen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Perez v. Bowen et al
as 5:2023cv00322
Plaintiff:
Salvador Perez, Jr
Defendant:
Mark Bowen, FNU Caldwell, FNU Russell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Davis v. Crow et al
as 5:2023cv00219
Plaintiff:
Antoine Davis
Defendant:
Director DOC Scott Crow, GEO Group Inc, Amber Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Goins v. GEO Lawton Correctional Facility et al
as 5:2022cv01014
Plaintiff:
Jacob Christian Goins
Defendant:
GEO Lawton Correctional Facility, Michael Boyer and Mark Bowen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Perez v. Bowen et al
as 5:2022cv00678
Plaintiff:
Salvador Perez, Jr
Defendant:
Mark Bowen, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Russell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
