Cases 1 - 10 of 69
(PC) Welch v. Mayberry et al
as 2:2026cv00407
Plaintiff:
Edward Roy Welch
Defendant:
B. Mayberry, J. Boyle, N. Lindsay and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Welch v. Newsom et al
as 2:2026cv00109
Plaintiff:
Edward Roy Welch
Defendant:
Gavin Newsom, Attonrey General California, James F. Reilley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Edward Dugger v. Leslie Dismukes
as 25-6785
Petitioner:
EDWARD ROY DUGGER
Respondent:
LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction
(PC) Welch v. Macomber et al
as 2:2025cv00735
Plaintiff:
Edward Roy Welch
Defendant:
Jeff Macomber, Miranda, Christensen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pinkard et al v. Becton Dickinson and Company et al
as 2:2024cv03734
Defendant:
Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated, Becton Dickinson and Company and Bard Access Systems Incorporated
Plaintiff:
Edward Roy Pinkard, Sr. and LaDonna Renee Clark Pinkard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Dugger v. State of North Carolina
as 5:2023hc02242
Petitioner:
Edward Roy Dugger
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dugger v. State of North Carolina
as 1:2023cv00317
Petitioner:
Edward Roy Dugger
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cengage Learning, Inc. v. Bernstein
as 23-7357
Petitioner:
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.
Respondent:
DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN, ELAINE INGULLI, TERRY HALBERT and others
Rodriguez v. USA
as 4:2021cv00128
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Edward Roy Rodriguez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2019cv07040
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
