Cases 11 - 20 of 35
McCarty v. Kansas, State of et al
as 5:2010cv03005
Plaintiff:
Edrick McCarty
Defendant:
Kansas, State of, Karen Rohling and Lisa Dipman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hellman v. Rohling et al
as 5:2009cv03223
Petitioner:
Rodney L. Hellman
Respondent:
Karen Rohling and Attorney General of Kansas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pyle v. Rohling et al
as 5:2009cv03197
Petitioner:
Michael D. Pyle
Respondent:
Karen Rohling and Attorney General of Kansas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pierce v. Rohling
as 5:2009cv03183
Petitioner:
Christopher Pierce
Respondent:
Karen Rohling
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garza v. Rohling et al
as 5:2009cv03144
Plaintiff:
Jose Garza
Defendant:
Karen Rohling, Correct Care Solutions and Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parrish-Parrado v. Rohling et al
as 5:2008cv03219
Petitioner:
Daniel Joseph Parrish-Parrado
Respondent:
Karen Rohling, Larned Correctional Facility, Lansing Correctional Facility and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Bafford v. Revers et al
as 5:2008cv03161
Plaintiff:
Johnathan William Bafford
Defendant:
(fnu) Revers, Karen Rohling and Roger Werholtz
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Caenen v. Rohling
as 5:2008cv03118
Petitioner:
Arthur J Caenen, Jr
Respondent:
Karen Rohling
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Hunt v. Kansas Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2008cv03087
Plaintiff:
Jeff Hunt
Defendant:
Kansas Department of Corrections, Gloria Geither and Karen Rohling
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Luton v. Rohling et al
as 5:2008cv03054
Petitioner:
John D Luton
Respondent:
Karen Rohling and Attorney General of Kansas
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.
