Cases 61 - 70 of 78
Nelson v. Hardeman County Corrections et al
as 3:2013cv01192
Plaintiff:
Oswald M. Nelson
Defendant:
Trainmem and Mental Health Provider, f/n/u Henson, f/nu Pierce and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Elliott v. Warren County Regional Jail Mail Room Staff et al
as 1:2013cv00164
Plaintiff:
Keenan S. Elliott and Michael A. Pierce
Defendant:
Warren County Regional Jail Mail Room Staff, Missy Causey, William Baker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pierce v. Dietz et al
as 4:2013cv01956
Plaintiff:
Thomas Alexander Pierce
Defendant:
Wayne Dietz and John Doe Lieutenant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Hunter v. Williams et al
as 3:2013cv00592
Plaintiff:
Stephen L. Hunter
Defendant:
(f/n/u) Williams and (f/n/u) Pierce
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cockshutt v Moore et al
as 2:2013cv00326
Plaintiff:
John D Cockshutt
Defendant:
Johnson, Ackley, Pierce and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Harris v. Nink et al
as 2:2013cv00304
Plaintiff:
Dwayne Harris
Defendant:
Carl Nink, John/or Jane Doe, Gary Mohr and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Michael Pierce v. E. Sealey, et al
as 13-5136
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL PIERCE
Defendant - Appellee:
E. SEALEY, Officer and OFFICER PARNELL
Pierce v. Sealey et al
as 3:2012cv00565
Plaintiff:
Michael Pierce
Defendant:
E Sealey and Parnell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cockshutt v. State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction et al
as 2:2012cv00532
Plaintiff:
John D Cockshutt
Defendant:
State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, Ernie Moore, Warden Madison Correctional Institution and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Collins et al v. Maury County Jail et al
as 1:2012cv00047
Plaintiff:
Michael Darren Collins and Tony Lamar Pierce, Jr.
Defendant:
Maury County Jail and Enoch George
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.
