Cases 51 - 60 of 758
Scarborough v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2023cv00154
Plaintiff:
Joseph David Scarborough
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Scarborough v. TDCJ, Director
as 3:2023cv00378
Petitioner:
Joseph David Scarborough
Respondent:
TDCJ, Director and Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Scarborough v. Daniel et al
as 5:2023cv00008
Plaintiff:
Christie Scarborough
Defendant:
Mary Daniel, Nicholas Hager and Frederick County of Virginia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
E. Scarborough, IIIIn re: E. Scarborough, III
as 23-1284
Petitioner:
In re: E. THOMAS SCARBOROUGH, III
Respondent:
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA and JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL
Allen v. Scarborough
as 3:2023cv00055
Plaintiff:
Andrew Mark Allen
Defendant:
J. J. Scarborough
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STATE MANUFACTURED HOMES INC v. CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND et al
as 2:2023cv00019
Plaintiff:
STATE MANUFACTURED HOMES INC
Defendant:
CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND and TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Pascoe v. Scarborough et al
as 3:2023cv00004
Plaintiff:
Christopher Pascoe
Defendant:
J.J. Scarborough, Ernie Rutherford, Janet Kaufman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
United States of America v. Fernandez (Morales)
as 22-3168
Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant:
Juan Fernandez, AKA Sealed Defendant 1, AKA Tito, Odell Scarborough, AKA Sealed Defendant 3, Yemalia Ayala, AKA Sealed Defendant 4, AKA Maggie and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Ramon Morales, AKA Sealed Defendant 2, AKA Seven
Petty v. Scarborough
as 3:2022cv00663
Plaintiff:
Tyler Joseph Petty
Defendant:
J. J. Scarborough
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
