Cases 81 - 90 of 12,613
Dahl v. Hughes et al
as 1:2024cv02429
Plaintiff:
Brandon Dohl and Brandon Dahl
Defendant:
Latoya Hughes and IDOC Directors
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ortiz v. Rompa et al
as 1:2024cv02245
Plaintiff:
Aaron R. Ortiz
Defendant:
Mike Rompa, Brennan Woods, Ramon Orejel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Campbell v. Mayor of Robbins Illinois et al
as 1:2024cv02097
Plaintiff:
David Campbell
Defendant:
Mayor of Robbins Illinois, Chief of Police and Sharon Dyson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Drago v. Chime Financial Technology Company
as 3:2024cv03046
Plaintiff:
James Drago
Defendant:
Chime Financial Technology Company
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mitchell v. Gregory
as 3:2024cv00930
Plaintiff:
Fredd B. Mitchell
Defendant:
Dennis A. Gregory
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Foster v. City of Chicago Police et al
as 1:2024cv02920
Plaintiff:
Cortez Foster
Defendant:
City of Chicago Police, Calvin Blunt, Jeffrey Hanssen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smtih v. Williams
as 3:2024cv01048
Plaintiff:
James Smtih
Defendant:
Warden Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McFadden v. Hughes et al
as 3:2024cv00760
Plaintiff:
Lavarius McFadden
Defendant:
Latoya Hughes, Anthony Willis, Tonya Knust and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Hughes et al
as 3:2024cv00761
Plaintiff:
Eric Smith
Defendant:
Latoya Hughes, Anthony Wills, Tonya Knust and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bryant v. Doe et al
as 3:2024cv00810
Plaintiff:
J.C. Bryant, III
Defendant:
Jane/John Doe, Pulaski County Dentention Center, Pulaski County Dentention Center Medical Unit and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
