Cases 1 - 10 of 26
Huffman v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
as 2:2024cv00269
Petitioner:
David Warren Huffman
Respondent:
Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Huffman v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
as 1:2024cv00035
Petitioner:
David Warren Huffman
Respondent:
Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Warren et al v. Bard Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv03959
Plaintiff:
Faye Warren and David Warren
Defendant:
Bard Davol, Inc., C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Huffman v. Lambt
as 4:2023cv00725
Plaintiff:
David Warren Huffman
Defendant:
Ms. Lambt
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Huffman v. Reckel
as 2:2022cv00160
Plaintiff:
David Warren Huffman
Defendant:
Chaplain Reckel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jeremy Gallant v. Ronald Erdos, et al
as 21-4134
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JEREMY P. GALLANT
Defendant / Appellee:
RONALD ERDOS, Warden, DEPUTY WARDEN WILLIAM COOL, CAPTAIN COLE DISTEL and others
David Huffman v. Pairan
as 21-4104
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID WARREN HUFFMAN
Defendant / Appellee:
CHAPLAIN PAIRAN, Ross Correctional Chaplain
Huffman v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution
as 2:2021cv03952
Petitioner:
David Warren Huffman
Respondent:
Warden Ross Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Huffman v. Pairan
as 2:2021cv03611
Defendant:
Ronald Morgan, Donald Morgan and Chaplain Pairan
Plaintiff:
David Warren Huffman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Joseph Constant v. DTE Electric Company, et al
as 20-1514
Defendant / Appellee:
NANCI J. GRANT, MICHAEL DAVID WARREN, JAMES M. HAMMOND and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOSEPH CONSTANT
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.
