Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Lester v. Nemo et al
as 7:2023cv00039
Plaintiff:
Christopher Cody Lester
Defendant:
Penny Nemo, Jim Shortt, Katy Patterson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dye v. Plaster et al
as 7:2023cv00037
Plaintiff:
Jesse Ryan Dye
Defendant:
Christopher Plaster, Katie Gallagher, Richard Patterson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Armonti v. Naphcare Management et al
as 2:2019cv00420
Defendant:
Dr. Abdul H. Jamaludeen, Ms. Parris, Ms. Lizzel and others
Plaintiff:
Montcier Paris Armonti and Montcler Paris Armonti
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Armonti v. Stolle et al
as 2:2019cv00423
Defendant:
Hon. Kenneth Stolle, N. Curtis, Katie C.X and others
Plaintiff:
Montcier Paris Armonti and Montcler Paris Armonti
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. The County of Halifax et al
as 7:2018cv00312
Plaintiff:
Douglas Lee Jones
Defendant:
Katie J. Smith and The County of Halifax
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Baker v. Jamaludeen et al
as 3:2018cv00447
Plaintiff:
Rainier Baker
Defendant:
Abdle Jamaludeen, Katy Hartwright and Virginia Beach Correctional Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hoiness v. Naphcare, Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv00358
Plaintiff:
Michael J. Hoiness
Defendant:
Naphcare, Inc., Abdul Jalaludeen and Katie Cartwright
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harper v. Gore et al
as 3:2015cv00303
Plaintiff:
Linwood Harper
Defendant:
Gore, Katie Hamlin and W. Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
De Armond v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al
as 2:2011cv00536
Plaintiff:
Arnold De Armond
Defendant:
Prison Health Services, Inc., George M. Hinkle, G.L. Holloway and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Delaney v. Marsh et al
as 1:2010cv00388
Plaintiff:
George Frederick Delaney
Defendant:
John O. Marsh, Carolyn Maclam, Health Services Foundation 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.
