Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Rhodes v. Ames
as 5:2022cv00032
Petitioner:
Robert Rhodes
Respondent:
Donald Ames
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rhodes et al v. West Virginia Division of Protective Services et al
as 2:2018cv01179
Defendant:
West Virginia Division of Protective Services, Gregory Scott Fernatt, Travas Bennett and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Rhodes and Robert Rhodes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Conner v. Rubenstein et al
as 2:2015cv16208
Plaintiff:
Michael Lee Conner, Jr.
Defendant:
Jim Rubenstein , John Frame , David Ballard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Taylor v. Ballard et al
as 2:2015cv16550
Plaintiff:
Steven J. Taylor
Defendant:
David Ballard , Rose , Iotov and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Curtis v. Close et al
as 2:2014cv24624
Plaintiff:
Michael Curtis
Defendant:
Justin Close , Jason Bragg , Brandon Leazure and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Winter v. Plumley et al
as 2:2014cv26977
Plaintiff:
Jacob Benjamin Winter
Defendant:
Mark Plumley, Clifton Carr, Margaret Cliffard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harper v. Barbagallo et al
as 2:2014cv07529
Plaintiff:
Cedeal Harper
Defendant:
Joseph Barbagallo, Shawn Ramsey, Robert Rhodes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Duncan Burress v. Timothy Perkin
as 14-6542
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DUNCAN LAMARR BURRESS
Defendant - Appellee:
TIMOTHY PERKINS, Correctional Officer II, JOSHUA HYPES, Correctional Officer, JEREMY ARBOGAST, Correctional Officer and others
Burress v. Perkins et al
as 2:2013cv01970
Plaintiff:
Duncan Lamarr Burress
Defendant:
Timothy Perkins, Joshua Hypes, Jeremy Arbogast and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Mount Olive Correctional Center et al
as 2:2012cv00788
Plaintiff:
Gregg Dulaney Smith
Defendant:
Mount Olive Correctional Center, James Rubenstein, Samuel Keenan 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.
