Cases 31 - 40 of 58
Genghis Stevenson v. Derral Adams, et al
as 12-17665
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GENGHIS KHAN ALI STEVENSON
Defendant - Appellee:
DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, S. ROUSSEAU, GIBSON and others
Patterson v. Gagner et al
as 2:2012cv01049
Defendant:
Albert P Patterson , Dale R Gagner and WSL Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Patterson v. United States of America et al
as 4:2012cv00752
Plaintiff:
Eugene P Patterson
Defendant:
United States of America and United States Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Patterson v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
as 2:2012cv02088
Plaintiff:
Eugene P Patterson
Defendant:
Corrections Corporation of America and B Koehn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Patterson v. United States of America et al
as 4:2012cv00671
Plaintiff:
Eugene P Patterson
Defendant:
United States of America, United States Bureau of Prisons and Unknown Parties
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Rowe v. Pratt et al
as 1:2012cv00647
Plaintiff:
Ronnie L. Rowe
Defendant:
County Commissioner Bill Pratt , County Commissioner Freddie Hayes , Les Boggs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Burman v. Bristol-Myers Squib Company et al
as 3:2012cv04478
Defendant:
Bristol-Myers Squib Company , McKesson Corporation, Alfred Crudele, Jr. and others
Plaintiff:
Bennie Burman , Wanda Burman , Tracy L. Clemens and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Patterson v. Apker et al
as 4:2012cv00520
Petitioner:
Eugene P Patterson
Respondent:
Craig Apker and United States Penitentiary Tucson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Patterson v. Astrue
as 2:2012cv00038
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
James P. Patterson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Patterson v. Gipson
as 4:2012cv01229
Plaintiff:
James P. Patterson
Defendant:
Connie Gipson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
