Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Dianna Blair, et al v. Charles Schievelhud, et al
as 24-5072
Plaintiff:
DIANNA CHRISTINE BLAIR and VIRGINIA ARLENE GOFORTH
Defendant:
CHARLES STEVEN SCHIEVELHUD and REBECCA STEE SCHIEVELHUD
Dianna Blair, et al v. Charles Schievelhud, et al
as 22-5118
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DIANNA CHRISTINE BLAIR and VIRGINIA ARLENE GOFORTH
Defendant / Appellee:
CHARLES STEVEN SCHIEVELHUD and REBECCA STEE SCHIEVELHUD
Blair et al v. Schievelhud et al
as 1:2020cv00282
Defendant:
Rebecca Stee Schievelhud and Charles Steven Schievelhud
Plaintiff:
Virginia Arlene Goforth and Dianna Christine Blair
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Goforth v. US
as 19-1848
Plaintiff / Appellant:
VIRGINIA ARLENE GOFORTH
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
GOFORTH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2018cv01183
Plaintiff:
VIRGINIA ARLENE GOFORTH
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Goforth v. United States of America
as 1:2018cv00135
Plaintiff:
Virginia Arlene Goforth
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Virginia Goforth v. Harley Lappin
as 15-7360
Plaintiff - Appellant:
VIRGINIA ARLENE GOFORTH
Plaintiff:
MR. GOFORTH, Virginia Arlene Goforth's Husband, and et al
Defendant - Appellee:
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director of Bureau of Prisons, NEWTON KENDING, Bureau of Prisons Medical Director, AMBER NELSON, Warden, Alderson Federal Prison Camp and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Individually, and in their official capacity as Custodians/Directors of Custodians, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General or Predecessor and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 15-12115
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv02637
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
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.
