Cases 1 - 8 of 8
GEICO v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE et al
as 1:2023cv02277
Plaintiff:
GEICO A/S/O JOSHUA ORTIZ and GEICO
Defendant:
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and MICHAEL SHUTE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
Akers v. Shute, et al
as 11-3112
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL SHUTE, U.S. Marshal Supervisor, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, U.S. Marshal Deputy, KIM I. MARTIN, Assistant U.S. Attorney, AKA Kim M. Berger, AKA Kim M. Fowler and others
Montgomery Akers v. Harrell Watts, et al
as 10-5336
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Montgomery Carl Akers
Defendant - Appellee:
Harrell Watts, Nation Appeals Coordinator, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Michael Nalley, Regional Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, R. Wiley, Warden, US Pentientiary-ADX, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Montgomery Akers v. Harrell Watts, et al
as 09-5001
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Montgomery Carl Akers
Defendant - Appellee:
Harrell Watts, Nation Appeals Coordinator, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Michael Nalley, Regional Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, R. Wiley, Warden, US Pentientiary-ADX, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Akers v. Vratil et al
as 5:2008cv03271
Plaintiff:
Montgomery Carl Akers
Defendant:
Kathryn H Vratil, Kim I Martin, Michael Shute and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Akers v. Uratil et al
as 4:2008cv02691
Plaintiff:
Montgomery Carl Akers
Defendant:
Kathryn H. Uratil, Kim I. Martin, Michael Shute and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Akers v. Shute et al
as 5:2008cv03106
Plaintiff:
Montgomery Carl Akers
Defendant:
Michael Shute, Christopher Johnson, Kim I Martin and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Akers v. Keszei et al
as 4:2007cv00521
Plaintiff:
Montgomery Carl Akers
Defendant:
James Keszei, Kim I. Martin, Jacqueline E. Rokusek and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
