Cases 11 - 19 of 19
ORTIZ v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 1:2013cv05372
Plaintiff:
CARLOS ORTIZ
Defendant:
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, SOUTH WOODS STATE PRISON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WENK v. LANIGAN et al
as 3:2012cv03143
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER WENK
Defendant:
GARY M. LANIGAN, NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, BARNES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BROOKS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2011cv06805
Petitioner:
ANTHONY A. BROOKS
Respondent:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS and PAULA T. DOW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TUKES v. HAYMAN et al
as 3:2010cv00098
Plaintiff:
MARCUS ERIC TUKES
Defendant:
GEORGE W. HAYMAN, NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, GRACE ROGERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HARRIS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 1:2009cv00610
Plaintiff:
LUCKY MCGEE HARRIS
Defendant:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CORRECTION and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
LUCKY MCGEE HARRIS v. CAPE MAY COUNTY et al
as 1:2008cv04264
Plaintiff:
LUCKY MCGEE HARRIS
Defendant:
CAPE MAY COUNTY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CORRECTION and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
CONKLIN v. PARRISH et al
as 1:2008cv02907
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY CONKLIN
Defendant:
R. DAVID PARRISH, E. DAVIS, NEIL LAYDEN and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
VASQUEZ v. HAUK et al
as 2:2007cv05867
Petitioner:
GEORGE VASQUEZ
Respondent:
BRUCE HAUK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY and NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
THROWER v. NEW JERSEY DEPT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2007cv03434
Plaintiff:
CURTIS THROWER
Defendant:
NEW JERSEY DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, THE, KALAL and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
