Cases 1 - 10 of 33
Wright v. Carter et al
as 2:2022cv02830
Plaintiff:
Glenn R. Wright and Rodney G. Wright
Defendant:
Alycia Carter, Daniel Dreysen, 3rd Floor Expundment [sic] Manager and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Wright v. Perry
as 2:2017cv02838
Petitioner:
Eric R. Wright
Respondent:
Grady Perry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Wright v. Barbee
as 2:2011cv03102
Petitioner:
Eric R. Wright
Defendant:
Dwight Barbee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Wright v. Wartime Satellite Disarment Laser et al
as 2:2011cv02442
Plaintiff:
Glenn R. Wright
Defendant:
Wartime Satellite Disarment Laser, Unlawful Surveilance and Contiential Baggering Disturbing Peace Law
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wright v. Uniformed Services Employment et al
as 2:2011cv02403
Plaintiff:
Glenn R. Wright
Defendant:
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and U.S. Department of Labor & Enforcement
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wright v. Cohen et al
as 2:2011cv02293
Plaintiff:
Glenn R. Wright
Defendant:
Steve Cohen, Harold Ford, Jr., Alycia Carter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wright v. Lammey et al
as 2:2011cv02089
Plaintiff:
Glenn R. Wright
Defendant:
James Lammey, U.S. Techno Satellite and Inner City Satellite
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wright v. TN State Trooper et al
as 2:2010cv02818
Plaintiff:
Glenn R. Wright
Defendant:
TN State Trooper, U.S. Techno Sat. Div., Shelby County Sheriff Metro Satellite Div. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wright v. Cricket Cell Phone Service et al
as 2:2010cv02761
Plaintiff:
Glenn R. Wright
Defendant:
Cricket Cell Phone Service, Daniel Dreysen and Temple of Deliverance
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wright v. Wharton et al
as 2:2010cv02762
Plaintiff:
Glenn R. Wright
Defendant:
A. C. Wharton, Cricket, Daniel Dreysen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
