Cases 1 - 10 of 49
Love v. John/Jane Does
as 6:2023cv06664
Plaintiff:
Ms. Rona Sugar Love and Rona Sugar Love
Defendant:
John/Jane Does
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Love v. John/Jane Does
as 1:2023cv10008
Plaintiff:
Ms. Rona Sugar Love
Defendant:
John/Jane Does
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Loving v. Superintendent
as 23-131
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Franklin Loving
Defendant / Appellee:
Robert Morton, Acting Superintendent of Downstate Corr. Facility
Defendant:
Superintendent, Downstate Correctional Facility, M.D. John or Jane Doe, Noriel DeGuzman, Physician Assistant, Downstate Corr. Facility and others
Vargas v. Bradford et al
as 9:2022cv00888
Plaintiff:
Antonio Vargas
Defendant:
Bradford, Harrington, Lovely and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Love v. Martuscello
as 22-1332
Petitioner / Appellant:
John L. Love
Respondent / Appellee:
Daniel F. Martuscello, III, Superintendent Cox. Corr.
Love v. City Of New York et al
as 1:2022cv01694
Plaintiff:
Rona Love
Defendant:
City Of New York, Faye Yelardy, James Reilly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wyatt v. Loving et al
as 1:2021cv10447
Plaintiff:
George Wyatt, Jr.
Defendant:
Kelly Loving, State of Texas System Government and Dallas Sheriff Dept.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bergeron v. Davis et al
as 1:2021cv06767
Plaintiff:
Jacob Andrew Bergeron
Defendant:
Dianne Davis, Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, Georgia State Regional Hospital and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd
Loving v. Doe et al
as 1:2021cv00527
Plaintiff:
Franklin Loving
Defendant:
John and Jane Doe and Superintendent
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Loving v. Superintendent
as 7:2020cv11135
Plaintiff:
Franklin Loving
Defendant:
Superintendent and M.D. John or Jane Doe
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.
