Cases 1 - 10 of 35
Tawe v. AKA John Doe et al
as 4:2021cv01789
Defendant:
L. Thompson, T. Brock, H. Klawinsky and others
Plaintiff:
Richard Ngeh Tawe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moses v. Jenkins
as 2:2019cv12889
Plaintiff:
Larry Moses
Defendant:
Robert Jenkins
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jenkins v. NYC Department of Corrections Division of Parole
as 1:2018cv06437
Defendant:
NYC Department of Corrections Division of Parole
Plaintiff:
Robert Jenkins
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Artrai Alexander v. TDCJ, et al
as 18-20278
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ARTRAI TURONE ALEXANDER
Defendant - Appellee:
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ROCKY N. MOORE, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Ferguson Unit Warden, FERGUSON UNIT, Texas Department of Criminal Justice and others
Tawe v. Roesler et al
as 4:2017cv03436
Plaintiff:
Richard N Tawe
Defendant:
Michael A Roesler, Charles H Landis, Keith Gorsuch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Joshua White v. Robert Jenkins, et al
as 17-20622
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSHUA O. WHITE
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT JENKINS, Warden at Ferguson Unit and ROBERT JENNINGS, Captain at Ferguson Unit
Holmes v. Jenkins et al
as 4:2017cv02461
Plaintiff:
Joshua C. Holmes
Defendant:
Robert Jenkins and Robert Jennings
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
White v. Jenkins et al
as 4:2017cv02432
Plaintiff:
Joshua O. White
Defendant:
Robert Jenkins
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JENKINS v. SMITH et al
as 2:2017cv00223
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and BRIAN SMITH
Petitioner:
ROBERT JENKINS
Miscellaneou:
PUTNAMVILLE CF (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. William et al
as 4:2016cv00193
Plaintiff:
Sam Jones
Defendant:
Stephens William , Kelly Strong, Robert Jenkins 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.
