Cases 1 - 10 of 39
Akers v. Flannigan, et al
as 21-3166
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS
Defendant / Appellee:
KIM I. FLANNIGAN, AKA Kim M. Berger, AKA Kim M. Fowler, AKA Kim I. Martin, AKA Kim Martinez-Butts, KATHRYN H. VRATIL, in their nongovernmental capacities, ERIC MELGREN, in their non-governmental capacities and others
Akers v. Flannigan et al
as 2:2021cv02042
Defendant:
Kim I. Flannigan, Kathy S. Hill, J. Conover and others
Plaintiff:
Montgomery Carl Akers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Akers v. Conover et al
as 3:2020cv00581
Defendant:
Katherine Siereveld, FNU Kelly, J Conover and others
Plaintiff:
Montgomery Carl Akers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Crescencio Perez-Perez v. M. Ray
as 17-1578
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CRECENCIO PEREZ-PEREZ
Defendant - Appellee:
M. E. RAY, Warden of FCI Estill, SC, as an individual and in his official capacity, C. E. FLOYD, Warden of FCI Estill, SC, as an individual and in his official capacity, E RAIN WATER, A.H.S.A, as an individual and in her official capacity and others
Nosair v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 3:2013cv01017
Plaintiff:
El-Sayyid Nosair
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Leslie Smith, D Scott Dodrill and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Chesser v. Rivas et al
as 3:2013cv00456
Plaintiff:
Zachary Chesser
Defendant:
Henry Rivas, Jeffrey Walton, Wendy Roal and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tylman v. Roal
as 3:2012cv00863
Petitioner:
Kenton W Tylman
Respondent:
Wendy Roal
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Medley v. Roal
as 3:2012cv00647
Petitioner:
Norman Medley
Respondent:
Wendy Roal
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Stafford v. Roal
as 3:2012cv00620
Petitioner:
Antonio Stafford
Respondent:
Wendy Roal
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Roal v. Gilmore
as 3:2012cv00606
Plaintiff:
Wendy Roal
Defendant:
Robert W. Gilmore
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
