Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Sewell v. Engel et al
as 8:2023cv00802
Plaintiff:
Emanuel Edward Sewell
Defendant:
Jason R. Engel, Esq., Don Douglas, Britainy Mafra and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Emmanuel Sewell v. Office of the Attorney General
as 15-6316
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN, MAJOR MELLOTT and others
Emmanuel Sewell v. J. Stouffer
as 12-6700
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, BOBBY P. SHEARIN, RICHARD R. GRAHAM and others
Defendant:
WARDEN, STEPHEN Z. MEEHAN, JOSEPH B. TETRAULT and others
Emmanuel Sewell v. Acting Commissioner
as 12-6680
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, BOBBY P. SHEARIN, CAPTAIN STOTTER and others
Emmanuel Sewell v. John Rowley
as 10-6463
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN A. ROWLEY, Warden, IAMES, Correctional Officer, RALEY, Correctional Officer and others
Emmanuel Sewell v. Kathleen Green
as 10-6392
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
KATHLEEN GREEN, MICHAEL KING, BRIAN ROMINES and others
Defendant - None:
WARDEN
MC-UA Local 119 Health and Welfare Fund et al v. Air Comfort Company, Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv00119
Plaintiff:
MC-UA Local 119 Health and Welfare Fund , James B. Donaghey , William Morrison and others
Defendant:
Air Comfort Company, Inc. and Stanley Small
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1145 E.R.I.S.A.
Sewell v. Rowley
as 8:2009cv00693
Plaintiff:
Emmanuel Edward Sewell
Defendant:
John A. Rowley
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Sewell v. Green et al
as 8:2007cv00667
Petitioner:
Emmanuel Edward Sewell
Respondent:
Kathleen S. Green and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND
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.
