Cases 1 - 10 of 65
John Doe, et al v. Dana Nessel, et al
as 23-2097
Plaintiff:
TIM BROWN, JOHN DOE and TIMOTHY RONALD BROWN
Defendant:
ATTORNEY GENERAL DANA NESSEL, ANICA LETICA, ONE COURT OF JUSTICE, Judges and others
Doe et al v. Nessel et al
as 1:2023cv11655
Plaintiff:
John Doe and Tim Brown
Defendant:
Dana Nessel, Anica Letica, One Court of Justice and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 3:2023cv00856
Plaintiff:
Charles Brown
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
Charles Brown v. Buddy Sivert, et al
as 22-3091
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHARLES BROWN
Defendant / Appellee:
SERGEANT BUDDY SIVERT, CITY OF LORAIN, OH, POLICE OFFICER STEYVEN G. CURRY and others
Charles Brown v. Christopher Rothgery
as 22-3090
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHARLES BROWN
Defendant / Appellee:
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER R. ROTHGERY
Charles Brown v. Lorain Cnty, OH Sheriff Dept, et al
as 22-3092
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHARLES BROWN
Defendant / Appellee:
LORAIN COUNTY, OH SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, CATHY CORNISH, STUART C. CONFIED and others
Brown v. Lorain County Sheriff's Office, et al
as 1:2021cv01643
Plaintiff:
Charles Brown
Defendant:
Lorain County Sheriff's Office, Cathy Cornish, Stuart C. Confied and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Sivert, et al
as 1:2021cv01630
Plaintiff:
Charles Brown
Defendant:
SGT. Buddy Sivert, City of Lorain, Police Officer Steyven G. Curry and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Rothgery
as 1:2021cv01645
Plaintiff:
Charles Brown
Defendant:
Judge Christopher R. Rothgery
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Lorain County Prosecutor's Office, et al
as 1:2021cv01629
Plaintiff:
Charles Brown
Defendant:
Lorain County Prosecutor's Office, Dennis P. Will, Margarita Rivera and others
Cause Of Action: 28 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.
