Cases 1 - 10 of 87
Gydesen v. Miller et al
as 1:2024cv00216
Plaintiff:
Morris Gydesen
Defendant:
Brian Miller, Kevin Madden, Troy Waidelich and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00492
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
Hood v. Truhlar et al
as 1:2023cv15591
Plaintiff:
Austin Darnell Hood
Defendant:
Officer Truhlar, Tracy S. Chapman and Will County Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv05025
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01000
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Pintaro et al v. Orel et al
as 1:2023cv01425
Plaintiff:
Jerome A. Pintaro and Marilyn Pintaro
Defendant:
James D. Orel, Robert G. Gibson, Bryan S. Chapman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02278
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
REINOEHL v. MERRILL et al
as 1:2022cv01974
Plaintiff:
JENNIFER REINOEHL
Defendant:
JOHN MERRILL, KATIE M. HOBBS, ALEJANDRO PADILLA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 bv Bivens Non-Prisoner
Terrance Shaw v. Brian Chapman, et al
as 22-2419
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TERRANCE J. SHAW and TERRANCE JAMES SHAW
Defendant / Appellee:
BRIAN CHAPMAN, TONYEKA NOEL and TODD THILLEMANN
Royer v. Elkhart City of et al
as 3:2022cv00254
Plaintiff:
Andrew Royer
Defendant:
Elkhart City of, Carlton Conway, Mark Daggy and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other 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.
