US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 191 - 200 of 9,433
Gardner v. DeHann
as 2:2024cv00196
Petitioner:
Pierre Gardner and Pierre Douglas Gardner
Respondent:
Sue DeHann
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00190
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hess v. Etsinger et al
as 2:2024cv00183
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Hess
Defendant:
Sergeant Etsinger, Sergeant Crochiere, Sgt Etsinger and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Neal v. King et al
as 2:2024cv00182
Plaintiff:
London De'shawn Neal
Defendant:
Lt Marcus King and Lt Anthony Matushak
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00176
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00177
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Warner v. Racine County Jail et al
as 2:2024cv00178
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Kyle Warner
Defendant:
Racine County Jail, Racine County Jail Medical Staff and Racine County Sheriff's Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Johnson
as 2:2024cv00180
Petitioner:
Tyrone Davis Smith
Respondent:
Steven Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Davis v. Boughton
as 2:2024cv00161
Petitioner:
Demoyne Davis
Respondent:
Gary Boughton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Singh v. Eplett
as 2:2024cv00170
Petitioner:
Arshpreet Singh
Respondent:
Cheryl Eplett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
