Cases 21 - 30 of 50
Knox v. Scott, et al
as 12-7041
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTONE L. KNOX
Defendant - Appellee:
WADE SCOTT, OSP FOOD SERVICE MGR., VALERIE WARD and others
Knox v. Green-Thomas, et al
as 12-7042
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTONE L. KNOX
Defendant - Appellee:
AMY GREEN-THOMAS, DEBRA ALDRIDGE, TERRY CRENSHAW and others
Muhammad v. Workman, et al
as 12-7035
Plaintiff - Appellant:
AB'DULLAH LAMAR RASHID MUHAMMAD
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDALL G. WORKMAN, Warden, TERRY CRENSHAW, Assistant Warden and BOB COMPTON, Food Service Supervisor
Cathey v. Jones, et al
as 12-7031
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BILL ROBERT CATHEY
Defendant - Appellee:
JUSTIN JONES, Director of DOC, DEBBIE MORTON, Director's Designee, RANDALL G. WORKMAN, Warden OSP and others
Knox v. Green-Thomas et al
as 6:2012cv00187
Plaintiff:
Antone L. Knox
Defendant:
Amy Green-Thomas, Debra Aldridge, Terry Crenshaw and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Knox v. Scott et al
as 6:2012cv00176
Plaintiff:
Antone L. Knox
Defendant:
Wade Scott, OSP Food Service Mgr., Valerie Ward and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Knox v. Scott et al
as 5:2012cv00390
Plaintiff:
Antone L A Knox
Defendant:
Wade Scott, Robert Compton, Valerie Fisk-Ward and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Muhammad v. Brackensiek et al
as 6:2012cv00144
Plaintiff:
Abdullah L.R. Muhammad
Defendant:
Wayne Brackensiek, Terry Crenshaw and Bob Compton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Berryhill v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections Board Members et al
as 5:2012cv00279
Plaintiff:
Lavern Berryhill
Defendant:
Oklahoma Department of Corrections Board Members, Justin Jones, Director of Dentistry and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Knox v. Orman, et al
as 12-6066
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTONE L. KNOX
Defendant - Appellee:
DAVID ORMAN, Mailroom Supervisor, MIKE OAKLEY, General Counsel, CRAIG MARSHAL, Assistant AG and others
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.
