Cases 1 - 10 of 128
Bischoff (PS) v. County of Montezuma, Colorado, USA et al
as 1:2024cv00752
Plaintiff:
Michael Earl Bischoff
Defendant:
County of Montezuma, Colorado, USA, Board of Supervisors and County Administrator, The
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Michael Patterson v. Bryan Morrison
as 24-1165
Petitioner:
MICHAEL EARL PATTERSON
Respondent:
BRYAN MORRISON, Warden, Lakeland Correctional Facility
Murphy v. Brown
as 1:2024cv00036
Plaintiff:
Michael Earl Murphy, Jr.
Defendant:
Angela Brown
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Woods v. Grant et al
as 3:2024cv00586
Plaintiff:
Michael Earl Woods
Defendant:
John Grant, M.D. Nathan M. Matolo and T. Woodson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moose v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2023cv01111
Plaintiff:
Michael Earl Moose
Defendant:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Watts v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv03963
Petitioner:
Michael Earl Watts
Respondent:
Bobbie Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JOHNSON v. 3M COMPANY
as 7:2023cv02779
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL EARL JOHNSON
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Hilson et al v. State of Iowa et al
as 4:2023cv00252
Petitioner:
Michael Earl Hilson, Brent Smith and Brent Marlon Smith
Respondent:
State of Iowa, Beth Skinner, Shawn Howard and others
Interested Party:
Aaron Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 st Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
KIRK v. SEVIER
as 1:2023cv01157
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL EARL KIRK
Respondent:
SEVIER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FLOWER v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv14553
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL EARL FLOWER
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
