Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Derrick Smith, et al v. James Schiebner
as 22-1307
Petitioner / Appellant:
DERRICK LEE SMITH, EDDIE RYAN LEWIS, JOSEPH AMBROSE and others
Respondent / Appellee:
JAMES R. SCHIEBNER
Rhone #926091 v. Schiebner
as 1:2022cv00211
Petitioner:
Edward Rhone #926091
Respondent:
James Schiebner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rhone #926091 v. Michigan Department of Corrections Bureau of Health Care Services et al
as 1:2022cv00172
Plaintiff:
Edward Rhone #926091
Defendant:
Michigan Department of Corrections Bureau of Health Care Services, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith #267009 et al v. Schiebner et al
as 1:2021cv01005
Petitioner:
Derrick Lee Smith #267009, Eddie Ryan Lewis #616302, Joseph Ambrose #185357 and others
Respondent:
James Schiebner, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Edward RhoneIn re: Edward Rhone
as 21-2636
Petitioner:
In re: EDWARD RHONE
Respondent:
JAMES R. SCHIEBNER, Warden
Edward Rhone v. Wayne County, MI Pros. Office, et al
as 16-1382
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWARD RHONE, a.k.a. Sidney Rhone
Defendant - Appellee:
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, RAJESH KRISH PRASAD, Prosecutor, JOHN DOE, Bar P#52577 and others
Rhone v. Wayne County Prosecutor Office et al
as 2:2016cv10795
Plaintiff:
Edward Rhone
Defendant:
Wayne County Prosecutor Office, Rajesh Krish Prasad, John Doe and others
Sidney Rhone v. Wayne County Prosecutors Ofc, et al
as 13-2698
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SIDNEY RHONE, aka Edward Rhone
Defendant - Appellee:
WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, RAJ PRASAN, Assistant, K SIMON, Assistant and others
Rhone v. Wayne County Prosecutors Office et al
as 4:2013cv13400
Plaintiff:
Edward Rhone
Defendant:
Wayne County Prosecutors Office, Raj Prasan, K Simon and others
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.
