Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Christopher Potter v. St. Charles County, et al
as 24-1492
Plaintiff:
Christopher J. Potter
Defendant:
St. Charles County, St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney Office, St. Charles County Counselor's Office and others
Potter v. Buckner
as 4:2024cv00245
Petitioner:
Christopher J. Potter
Respondent:
Michelle Buckner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Potter v. St. Charles County et al
as 4:2023cv01511
Plaintiff:
Christopher J. Potter
Defendant:
St. Charles County, St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney Office, St. Charles County Counselor's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Potter v. Lewis et al
as 4:2021cv01319
Plaintiff:
Christopher J. Potter
Defendant:
Scott Lewis, Drevon Moore and Kayci Kirsch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Potter v. Clickner et al
as 2:2019cv04154
Petitioner:
Christopher J Potter
Defendant:
Clickner, Anne L. Precythe, Unknown Supervisors and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Potter v. Echele
as 4:2019cv02234
Defendant:
Debbie Echele
Plaintiff:
Christopher J. Potter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Potter v. Precythe et al
as 2:2019cv04150
Plaintiff:
Christopher J Potter
Defendant:
MO DOC Board of Probation and Parole and Anne L. Precythe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Potter v. Lineback et al
as 4:2018cv00235
Plaintiff:
Christopher J. Potter
Defendant:
Nicholas Lineback, Fred Statler, Mike Marshall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Potter v. Echele et al
as 4:2018cv00148
Plaintiff:
Christopher J. Potter
Defendant:
Debbie Echele, Jessica Richard, Theresa Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Richardson v. Jacksonville Sheriffs Office et al
as 3:2016cv01053
Plaintiff:
Reginald Keith Richardson
Defendant:
Jacksonville Sheriffs Office, Christopher J. Potter and A. R. Ellis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
