Cases 1 - 10 of 39
Hazel v. Lappin et al
as 2:2015cv00090
Plaintiff:
Bobby E. Hazel
Defendant:
Harley G. Lappin, Joe Driver, Jeff Boyles and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Ray v. Driver et al
as 2:2010cv00009
Plaintiff:
Kenneth William Ray, II
Defendant:
Joe Driver, Harold Boyles and Michelle T. Fuseyamore
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Jones v. United States of America, et al
as 5:2010cv00001
Plaintiff:
Terry Jones
Defendant:
United States of America and Joe Driver
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Jones v. United States of America, et al
as 2:2009cv01545
Plaintiff:
Terry Jones
Defendant:
United States of America and Joe Driver
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Francis v. Petrisko et al
as 2:2009cv00139
Plaintiff:
Freddie Francis, Jr.
Defendant:
Petrisko, Joe Driver, Baker and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
HAZEL v. LAPPIN et al
as 2:2009cv00070
Plaintiff:
Bobby E. Hazel
Defendant:
Harley G. Lappin, Joe Driver, JEFF BOYLES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bradley v. Driver et al
as 1:2009cv00054
Plaintiff:
Christopher Bradley
Defendant:
Joe Driver, John Doe, Jim Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
WHEELER v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2008cv00206
Plaintiff:
QUINTON WHEELER
Defendant:
Harley G. Lappin, Joe Driver, JEFF BOYLES and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Ray v. Driver et al
as 2:2008cv00106
Plaintiff:
Kenneth W. Ray
Defendant:
Joe Driver and Harold Boyles
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Blackwell v. Department of Justice Federal Bureau Prisons Central Office et al
as 1:2008cv00181
Plaintiff:
Barbara May Blackwell
Defendant:
Department of Justice Federal Bureau Prisons Central Office, Joe Driver and M Foy
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
