Cases 1 - 10 of 18
CLARK v. MALIK et al
as 3:2023cv03697
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY S. CLARK
Defendant:
MUDBUSER MALIK, TERESA MAYER, KEVIN O'NEILL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Talbot v. Barraza
as 1:2023cv00847
Petitioner:
Steven Talbot
Respondent:
Warden Barraza
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
WALKER v. ONEILL et al
as 2:2017cv04973
Plaintiff:
JERRY EUGENE WALKER
Defendant:
STEVEN T. ONEILL, MEGHAN LACHEPLLE, MICHAEL R. GORDON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOYD v. LANIGAN et al
as 2:2017cv01102
Plaintiff:
JARRETT BOYD
Defendant:
GARY M. LANIGAN, CEC INC. TALBOT HALL, SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NIBLACK v. EDUCATION & HEALTH CENTERS OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2016cv05386
Plaintiff:
STANLEY L. NIBLACK
Defendant:
EDUCATION & HEALTH CENTERS OF AMERICA , JOHN DOE, COMMUNITY EDUCATIONAL CENTERS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Talbot Curtin v. Warden Canaan USP
as 15-2200
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TALBOT CURTIN
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN CANAAN USP
TUCKER v. TALBOT HALL CORRECTIONS FACILITY et al
as 1:2014cv05687
Petitioner:
JOSEPH TUCKER
Respondent:
TALBOT HALL CORRECTIONS FACILITY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY BAYSIDE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JAMES W. PALMER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Richard Owens v. Warden Middlesex County Adult, et al
as 14-3099
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD OWENS
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN MIDDLESEX COUNTY ADULT CORRECTIONS CENTER, TALBOT, Dr. and CFG HEALTH SYSTEMS INC
Curtin v. Ebbert
as 1:2014cv01182
Petitioner:
Talbot Curtin
Respondent:
David J. Ebbert
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SZEMPLE v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE INC. et al
as 3:2013cv06087
Plaintiff:
CRAIG FRANCIS SZEMPLE
Defendant:
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE INC., ART BREWER, Y. SOLIMAN, MD 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.
