Cases 1 - 10 of 30
TAYLOR et al v. SAMUELS et al
as 2:2015cv00097
Defendant:
JOHN/ JANE DOES, SARAH QURESHI and CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS, ROBERT DAVID NEAL and RALPH TAYLOR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NEAL v. LARIVA
as 2:2014cv00021
Respondent:
LEANNE LARIVA
Petitioner:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
NEAL v. OLIVER
as 2:2013cv00251
Petitioner:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Respondent:
JOHN C. OLIVER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv00248
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
NEAL v. OLIVER
as 2:2013cv00237
Petitioner:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Respondent:
JOHN C. OLIVER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
NEAL v. THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
as 2:2013cv00209
Plaintiff:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Defendant:
THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
NEAL v. OLIVER
as 2:2013cv00199
Petitioner:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Respondent:
JOHN C. OLIVER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
NEAL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2013cv00196
Plaintiff:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Defendant:
JOHN C. OLIVER, A. RUPSKA, CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
NEAL v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2013cv00188
Defendant:
TERESER A. BANKS, F. TIMOTHY COLEMAN, STEPHEN COPE and others
Plaintiff:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
NEAL v. OLIVER
as 2:2013cv00175
Petitioner:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Respondent:
JOHN C. OLIVER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
