Cases 21 - 30 of 32
Harold Dykes v. Brian Murphy, et al
as 10-2632
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Harold S. Dykes
Defendant - Appellee:
Brian Murphy, Caseworker, ERDCC, Individually and Officially, Douglas Montgomery, Caseworker, ERDCC, Individually and Officially, John Prier, Correctional Officer II, ERDCC, Individually and Officially and others
USA v. Bert Montgomery
as 10-16360
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
BERT DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY
Bert Montgomery v. USDCMARI
as 10-70593
:
In re: BERT DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY
Petitioner:
BERT DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY
Respondent:
USDC, MARIANAS
Real Party In Interest:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Jermaine Ewing v. James Purkett, et al
as 09-2624
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Jermaine S. Ewing
Defendant - Appellee:
James Purkett, C.A.O., Tom Villimer, A.S.O.M., Mike Lundy, Superintendent and others
Dykes v. Murphy et al
as 4:2009cv01062
Plaintiff:
Harold Stephen Dykes
Defendant:
Brian Murphy, Douglas Montgomery, John Prier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
USA v. Bert Montgomery
as 09-16382
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
BERT DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY
Ewing v. Purkett et al
as 4:2009cv00392
Plaintiff:
Jermaine S. Ewing
Defendant:
James Purkett, Tom Villimer, Mike Lundy and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Dykes v. Murphy et al
as 4:2009cv00224
Plaintiff:
Harold Stephen Dykes
Defendant:
Brian Murphy, Douglas Montgomery, John Prier and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Jonathan Riches v. Andrew Bedenfield
as 08-7382
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JONATHAN LEE RICHES
Defendant - Appellee:
ANDREW FELITT BEDENFIELD and BERT DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY
Lloyd v. Florida Department of Corrections
as 1:2008cv21660
Plaintiff:
Douglas Montgomery Lloyd
Defendant:
Florida Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
