Cases 1 - 10 of 225
Hager et al v. Jividen et al
as 5:2024cv00258
Plaintiff:
Douglas Hager and Adam Lee Suratt
Defendant:
Betsy Jividen, Michael Francis, Tiffany Ford and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Happen Technologies LLC v. Social Business Experience Inc. et al
as 4:2024cv00643
Plaintiff:
Happen Technologies, LLC
Defendant:
Social Business Experience, Inc. and Michael Francis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
United States v. Michael Hamer
as 24-1964
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Michael Francis Hamer
Brown v. Jividen et al
as 5:2024cv00152
Plaintiff:
Anthony Brown
Defendant:
Betsy Jividen, West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Michael Francis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Boggs v. Jividen et al
as 5:2024cv00151
Plaintiff:
Dustin Boggs and Luke Tyler Holstein
Defendant:
Betsy Jividen, Michael Francis, Tiffany Ford and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wriston et al v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 5:2024cv00097
Plaintiff:
Richard Jay Wriston and Richard Jason Wriston
Defendant:
West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Betsy Jividen, Jeff Sandy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00314
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Mann v. Laroque et al
as 2:2023cv08237
Plaintiff:
Joseph Mann
Defendant:
Natasha, Laroque, Ahmed, Masuma, Michael, Francis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Barnes v. United States of America
as 7:2023cv01570
Plaintiff:
Michael Barnes and Michael Francis Barnes
Defendant:
United States of America
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
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.
