US District Court for the District of Connecticut Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 121 - 130 of 6,255
Verity v. Doe et al
as 3:2024cv00635
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Michael Verity
Defendant:
John Doe, Juanita Scott, Mahboob Ashraf and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Torres et al v. Sample et al
as 3:2024cv00638
Plaintiff:
Hector M. Torres and Toliver
Defendant:
Sample and Osborn Correctional
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rentas v. Semple et al
as 3:2024cv00642
Plaintiff:
Miquel Rentas, Jr.
Defendant:
Semple, Arnone, Cepelak and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hurley v. Stover
as 3:2024cv00593
Petitioner:
Ashley Hurley
Respondent:
R. Stover
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Zelinsky v. Osborne Correctional
as 3:2024cv00555
Plaintiff:
Peter A Zelinsky
Defendant:
Osborne Correctional
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rivera v. Cologne et al
as 3:2024cv00557
Plaintiff:
Luis Rivera
Defendant:
Cologne, Warden, Commissioner and others
Other:
Scanning Program - Corrigan Radgowski
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ortiz-Ramos v. Semple et al
as 3:2024cv00565
Plaintiff:
Angel L. Ortiz-Ramos
Defendant:
Semple and Angel Quiros
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Doyle et al v. Semple
as 3:2024cv00548
Plaintiff:
Jeffery Doyle and Toliver
Defendant:
Semple
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Valle v. Semple et al
as 3:2024cv00562
Plaintiff:
Luis Valle
Defendant:
Semple, Angel Quiros and Scanning Program - Osborn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rodriguez v. Semple et al
as 3:2024cv00566
Plaintiff:
Christopher Rodriguez
Defendant:
Scott Semple, Edward Maldonado, Carol Chapdelaine and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
