Cases 1 - 10 of 44
Raymond Sullivan v. James Anders, Warden, et al
as 17-10385
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RAYMOND WAYNE SULLIVAN
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES D. ANDERS, WARDEN, JAMES V. ALLRED UNIT, RICHARD E. WATHEN, Senior Warden, CARLA S. WADLOW, Correctional Officer III - Craftshop Supervisor and others
Alex Howard v. Robert Eason, et al
as 16-11808
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ALEX JARAUN HOWARD
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT EASON, MICHAEL UPSHAW, PAUL MORALES and others
Lawton Tyson v. Richard Wathen, et al
as 16-11527
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LAWTON FREDERICK TYSON
Defendant - Appellee:
RICHARD E. WATHEN, EARNEST R. COOKE, JONATHEN EASTEP and others
Alexander et al v. Linthicum et al
as 7:2016cv00104
Plaintiff:
Darrold L Alexander and Marcus S Rhodes
Defendant:
Phyllis McWhorter, Tommy L. Norwood, Lannette Linthicum and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bowman v. Wathen et al
as 7:2016cv00102
Defendant:
Richard E. Wathen, James Anders, Charles R Horsely and others
Plaintiff:
Bunkey Bowman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rumph v. Wathen et al
as 3:2015cv01946
Plaintiff:
Jerry Wayne Rumph
Defendant:
Richard E Wathen, Joseph C Boyle and William Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rumph v. Wathen et al
as 7:2015cv00096
Plaintiff:
Jerry Wayne Rumph
Defendant:
Richard E Wathen, Joseph C Boyle and William Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Addicks v. Wathen
as 7:2015cv00087
Plaintiff:
Roy Edward Addicks, Jr
Defendant:
Richard E Wathen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McCullough v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice et al
as 7:2015cv00074
Plaintiff:
Jabri J McCullough
Defendant:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Brad Livingston, Richard E Wathen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Alex Howard v. Robert Eason, et al
as 15-10082
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ALEX JARAUN HOWARD
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT EASON, MICHAEL UPSHAW, PAUL MORALES and others
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.
