Cases 41 - 50 of 174
Annamalai v. Simpkins et al
as 3:2022cv02576
Plaintiff:
Annamalai Annamalai and Swamiji Sri Selvam Siddhar
Defendant:
Nathan Simpkins, Gary Burgess, Daniel Sproul and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
La' Ron Matlock v. Daniel Sproul
as 22-2999
Petitioner / Appellant:
LA' RON MATLOCK, also known as LARON MATLOCK
Respondent / Appellee:
DANIEL SPROUL, Warden
Akers v. Sproul et al
as 3:2022cv02469
Plaintiff:
Montgomery Carl Akers
Defendant:
Dan Sproul, A. McCaffery, G. Soza and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Garrison v. Sproul
as 3:2022cv02467
Petitioner:
Ricky Garrison
Respondent:
D. Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Haris v. Sproul
as 3:2022cv02436
Petitioner:
Courtney Lee Haris and Courtney Lee Harris
Defendant:
D. Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Womack v. Sproul
as 3:2022cv02148
Petitioner:
Anthony Womack
Respondent:
Dan Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Pemberton v. USA
as 3:2022cv02079
Petitioner:
Devin A. Pemberton
Respondent:
USA and Daniel Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Curtis v. Jarrett, et al.
as 3:2022cv02082
Plaintiff:
Courtney Curtis
Defendant:
Counselor Jarrett, Lt. Brooks, Shaw and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Christy v. Marion USP
as 3:2022cv02044
Plaintiff:
Shawn Christy
Defendant:
Marion USP, Daniel Sproul, John LeClair and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Annamalai v. Sproul et al
as 3:2022cv01541
Plaintiff:
Annamalai Annamalai and Swamiji Sri Selvam Siddhar
Defendant:
Daniel Sproul, Nathan Simpkins, Gary Burgess and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
