Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Rhode Island Department of Corrections, et al v. Paiva
as 23-1919
Petitioner / Appellant:
RICHARD LEE PAIVA
Petitioner:
NICHOLAS A. PALMIGIANO, WILLIAM J. O'BRIEN, JOHN F. PIERCE and others
Plaintiff:
ERIC DAY, WILLIAM THOMAS, DANIEL SMITH and others
Defendant / Appellee:
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and STATE OF RI
Interested Party:
KENNETH WILSON, CHRISTOPHER HADLEY, NORMAN WHEELER and others
Libertad v. Casey et al
as 1:2022cv10130
Plaintiff:
Lucha El Por Libertad and Steven Perez
Defendant:
Ryan Casey and Laurence D Pierce
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BAKER v. ESTES et al
as 1:2019cv00244
Plaintiff:
KARON E BAKER
Defendant:
SHAWN PIERCE and DETECTIVE MATTHEW I ESTES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Morales Jr., v. Katzmann et al
as 1:2015cv12946
Plaintiff:
Miguel Angel Morales Jr.
Defendant:
Meade, Rubin, Linda Giles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Morales v. Giles et al
as 1:2014cv11998
Plaintiff:
Miguel A. Morales
Defendant:
Linda Giles, Dana Pierce and Robert Zanello
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ducharme v. Pierce
as 1:2014cv00197
Plaintiff:
Michael Ducharme
Defendant:
Thomas Pierce
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Laurence v. Wall, et al
as 11-1749
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NORMAN LAURENCE
Defendant - Appellee:
A.T. WALL, GEORGE A. VOSE, JAKE GADSDEN and others
Laurence v. Wall, et al
as 11-1749
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NORMAN LAURENCE
Defendant / Appellee:
ASHBEL T. WALL, GEORGE A. VOSE, JAKE GADSDEN and others
Laurence v. Wall, et al
as 11-1307
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NORMAN LAURENCE
Defendant - Appellee:
A.T. WALL, WILLIAM BEGONES, PAUL MARIORENZI and others
Defendant:
JAKE GADSDEN, JAMES WEEDEN, DONNA COLLINS and others
Stone v. Wall et al
as 1:2011cv00127
Plaintiff:
Timothy Stone
Defendant:
A. T. Wall, James Weeden, Donna Collins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
