Cases 1 - 10 of 28
Jackson v. Lake
as 4:2023cv00847
Plaintiff:
Roy Jackson
Defendant:
Judge Sim Lake
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chadwick v. Lake et al
as 4:2022cv03072
Plaintiff:
Claude Wayne Chadwick
Defendant:
Honorable Sim Lake, Houston USDC Division and US Department Treasury Federal Reserve
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv02324
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Peters v. United States
as 22-20246
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael G. Peters and Dalton G. Peters
Defendant / Appellee:
United States, U.S. Southern District Court, George C. Hanks, Jr. and others
Peters v. USA
as 22-20180
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant / Appellee:
United States of America, United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division, George C. Hanks, Jr. and others
Peters et al v. United States et al
as 4:2022cv00762
Plaintiff:
Michael G. Peters and Dalton G Peters
Defendant:
United States, U.S. Southern District Court, George C Hanks, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Peters v. United States et al
as 4:2022cv00733
Plaintiff:
Michael G Peters
Defendant:
United States, U. S. Southern District Court, George C Hanks, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Peters v. Lake
as 22-20082
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant / Appellee:
Sim Lake and State of Texas
Peters v Lake et al
as 4:2022cv00252
Plaintiff:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant:
Sim Lake and State Of Texas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Ezell v. Livingston et al
as 4:2021cv02728
Plaintiff:
Joseph Scott Ezell
Defendant:
Brad Livingston, Nathaniel Quarteman, Gary Johnson 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.
