Cases 1 - 10 of 11
James Biggins v. Carl Danberg, et al
as 17-2319
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant:
CARL C. DANBERG, T. CARROLL, R. KEARNEY and others
Defendant - Appellee:
RONALD WILLEY, R. CARTER, E. HEDDINGER and others
James Biggins v. Robert Coupe, et al
as 16-4333
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT COUPE, PERRY PHELPS, Deputy Assistant Principle, CHRISTOPHER RLEIN, Chief and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00895
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ali v. Delaware Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2015cv01089
Plaintiff:
Shamsidin Ali
Defendant:
Delaware Department of Corrections, Robert Coupe, David Pierce and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James Biggins v. C. Danberg, et al
as 15-1384
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant - Appellee:
C. DANBERG, T. CARROLL, R. KEARNEY and others
James Biggins v. Carl Danberg, et al
as 13-1498
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant:
CARL C. DANBERG, THOMAS L. CARROLL, MIKE DELOY and others
Not Party:
DR. CLAUDIA PARKER
James Biggins v. Carl Danberg
as 12-1411
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant - Appellee:
CARL C. DANBERG, THOMAS L. CARROLL, MIKE DELOY and others
Biggins v. Danberg et al
as 1:2010cv00732
Plaintiff:
James Arthur Biggins
Defendant:
Carl C. Danberg, Thomas L. Carroll, Mike Deloy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
James Biggins v. C. Danberg, et al
as 10-2939
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant - Appellee:
C. DANBERG, RICK KEARNEY, MIKE COSTELLO and others
Debtor - Appellee:
M. LITTLE
Biggins v. Danberg et al
as 1:2009cv00862
Plaintiff:
James Arthur Biggins
Defendant:
C. Danberg, T. Carroll, R. Kearney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
