Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Harris v. Arpaio et al
as 2:2016cv03303
Plaintiff:
Henry Harris, Jr.
Defendant:
Joseph M Arpaio, Fulton Brock, Andrew Kunasek and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as 2:2014cv02670
Plaintiff:
John Henry Harris, Jr.
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Harris v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as 2:2014cv29275
Plaintiff:
John Henry Harris, Jr.
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
William Harris, Jr. v. Alabama Department of Correcti
as 12-15353
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM HENRY HARRIS, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Steven Montes v. State of Arizona, et al
as 12-16515
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STEVEN ARTHUR MONTES
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF ARIZONA, CITY OF TUCSON, COUNTY OF PIMA and others
Harris v. Rambo et al
as 4:2011cv01646
Plaintiff:
William Henry Harris, Jr
Defendant:
Reginald Rambo, Gregory Gaston, Veronica King and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Montes v. Arizona, State of et al
as 4:2011cv00267
Plaintiff:
Steven Arthur Montes
Defendant:
Arizona, State of, Tucson, City of, Pima, County of and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Harris v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2010cv01333
Plaintiff:
William Henry Harris, Jr
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections and Haywood
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mary Harris, et al v. Augusta, Georgia, et al
as 10-12045
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARY JANE HARRIS and HENRY HARRIS, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, RONALD STRENGTH, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Richmond County, JIMMY WYLDS, individually as Supervisor of Deputy Charles McDowell and in his official capacity as an officer of the Richmond County Sheriff's Office 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.
