Cases 1 - 10 of 31
Kevin Theriot v. Daniel LeSatz, et al
as 19-1278
Defendant / Appellee:
[UNKNOWN] HOFFNER, ARUS, OFFICER GOSS, DONALD RICUMSTRICT, Deputy Warden and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KEVIN DWAYNE THERIOT
Rufus Spearman v. Daniel Heyns, et al
as 17-1384
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUFUS SPEARMAN, aka Rufus Lamar Savin Spearman
Defendant - Appellee:
DANIEL H. HEYNS, Director of the MDOC, RICHARD D. RUSSELL, Grievance Manager & Misconduct Hearings Administrator, UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as Kinross Complex Store, Jane Doe (Prisoner Store Employees) and others
Rufus Spearman v. Daniel Heyns, et al
as 17-1338
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUFUS SPEARMAN, aka Rufus Lamar Savin Spearman
Defendant - Appellee:
DANIEL H. HEYNS, Director of the MDOC, RICHARD D. RUSSELL, Grievance Manager & Misconduct Hearings Administrator, UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as Kinross Complex Store, Jane Doe (Prisoner Store Employees) and others
Jay Waller v. Lloyd Rapelje
as 16-2236
Petitioner - Appellant:
JAY WALLER
Respondent - Appellee:
LLOYD RAPELJE, Warden
Thomas Poe v. Lloyd Rapelje
as 16-1746
Petitioner - Appellant:
THOMAS POE
Respondent - Appellee:
LLOYD RAPELJE, Warden
Robert Brannon v. Lloyd Rapelje
as 16-1124
Petitioner - Appellee:
ROBERT K. BRANNON
Respondent - Appellant:
LLOYD RAPELJE, Warden
James Johnson v. Lloyd Rapelje
as 15-1037
Petitioner - Appellant:
JAMES JOHNSON
Respondent - Appellee:
LLOYD RAPELJE, Warden
Thomas Poe v. Lloyd Rapelje
as 14-2485
Petitioner - Appellant:
THOMAS POE
Respondent - Appellee:
LLOYD RAPELJE, Warden
Daniel Marin v. Lloyd Rapelje, et al
as 14-2359
Petitioner - Appellant:
DANIEL MARIN
Respondent - Appellee:
LLOYD RAPELJE, Warden, J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, Respondent (Intervenor) and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
David St Ann v. Lloyd Rapelje
as 14-2091
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID ST ANN
Respondent - Appellee:
LLOYD RAPELJE, Warden
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.
