Cases 1 - 10 of 43
Jones v. FCI Ashland
as 0:2024cv00036
Petitioner:
CRAIG QUINZEL JONES and KEITH DOUGHERTY
Respondent:
FCI Ashland
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
DOUGHERTY v. WYSOL et al
as 1:2023cv22744
Petitioner:
KEITH DOUGHERTY
Respondent:
GEORGE WYSOL, JUDGE DIAMOND, JUDGE WOLSON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
USA v. Keith Dougherty
as 23-2735
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
KEITH DOUGHERTY
Keith Dougherty, et al v. Jared Dupes, et al
as 23-2731
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KEITH DOUGHERTY
Plaintiff / Appellee:
BRENT FREY, ERICA FREY and R. MICHAEL BEST, and all "others similarly sitauated"
Defendant / Appellee:
JARED DUPES, PA Department of Revenue Bureau of Compliance In his individual and supervisory capacity, COMMONWEALTH COURT CLERK, In its executive and official capacity, CHRISTOPHER CONNER, In his executive function and others
DOUGHERTY v. CHAGARES et al
as 2:2023cv01119
Plaintiff:
KEITH DOUGHERTY
Defendant:
CHIEF CHAGARES, CHIEF SANCHEZ, GEORGE WYLESOL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Phillips et al v. City of Baytown et al
as 4:2022cv02197
Plaintiff:
Isaiah Phillips and Skylar Gilmore
Defendant:
City of Baytown, Police Chief Keith Dougherty, Nathaniel Brown and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
USA v. Keith Dougherty
as 22-1666
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
KEITH DOUGHERTY
Phillips et al v. City Of Baytown et al
as 4:2021cv02690
Plaintiff:
Isaiah Phillips and Skylar Gilmore
Defendant:
City Of Baytown, City of Baytown Police Chief Keith Dougherty, Nathaniel Brown and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
USA v. Keith Dougherty
as 21-2280
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
KEITH DOUGHERTY
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.
