Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Powell v. Ahmed et al
as 3:2023cv00237
Plaintiff:
Steven Bradley Powell
Defendant:
Failsel Vakil Ahmed, Nurse Brown, Ms Mills and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Maze v. Ahmed et al
as 3:2022cv00980
Plaintiff:
Paul D. Maze
Defendant:
Faisal Ahmed, Ms. Brazzell, E. Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
RUNYON v. KRUEGER et al
as 2:2017cv00530
Defendant:
BRAZZELL, JOHN EDWARDS, FBI AGENT and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID RUNYON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
RUNYON v. KRUEGER et al
as 1:2017cv04277
Defendant:
BRAZZELL, JOHN EDWARDS, FBI AGENT and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID RUNYON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Joshua Brazzel v. Keith Butt
as 17-2170
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOSHUA BRAZZEL
Respondent - Appellee:
KEITH BUTTS
BUSTILLO v. DANIELS, et al
as 2:2016cv00007
Defendant:
ATEBERRY, J BAKER, MAYOR BALLARD and others
Plaintiff:
FERNANDO BUSTILLO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brazzell v. Liberty Healthcare Corporation et al
as 4:2015cv04185
Plaintiff:
Ronnie Brazzell
Defendant:
Liberty Healthcare Corporation, Shan Jumper, Sharlene Caraway and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BRAZZEL v. BROWN
as 2:2015cv00292
Petitioner:
JOSHUA BRAZZEL
Respondent:
RICHARD BROWN
Miscellaneou:
WVCF (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smego et al v Dimas et al
as 4:2015cv04097
Plaintiff:
Richard M Smego, Dothan Rogers, Jeffrey Alan Hargett and others
Defendant:
James Dimas, Gregg A. Scott, Michael Bednarz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BUSTILLO v. DANIELS et al
as 2:2015cv00184
Defendant:
E. BRAZZELL, CHARLES DANIELS, R. KANADY and others
Plaintiff:
FERNANDO BUSTILLO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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.
