Cases 31 - 40 of 230
Mark Lane v. Jonathan Hemingway
as 23-1526
Petitioner / Appellant:
MARK ALAN LANE
Respondent / Appellee:
FCI MILAN WARDEN and JONATHAN HEMINGWAY
Walker v. Weinman et al
as 2:2023cv00345
Plaintiff:
Robert Earl Walker
Defendant:
Robert Weinman, Vicky Gwendlen, Ashley Haseleu and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chittick v. Dodd et al
as 3:2023cv00461
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Chittick
Defendant:
Rachael Dodd, Josh Lane and Phil Martin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Booker v. Fox Gotz et al
as 2:2022cv01567
Plaintiff:
Aziz Rahim Booker
Defendant:
Chelsea Fox Gotz, Michelle Lane, Patricia Riley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lussier v. Lane
as 1:2022cv01176
Plaintiff:
Dustin James Lussier
Defendant:
Sgt Lane
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LANE v. HOLCOMB et al
as 1:2022cv01761
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL V. LANE
Defendant:
ERIC J. HOLCOMB, ROBERT E. CARTER JR., DR. DAUSS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Traxler v. Shertz et al
as 2:2022cv00760
Plaintiff:
Lyle F Traxler
Defendant:
Brian Shertz, Ashley Haseleu, Brian Taplin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lane v. Village of Dolton Police Department, The et al
as 1:2022cv02735
Plaintiff:
Michael N. Lane
Defendant:
Village of Dolton Police Department, The, Officer Malone and Other Officer Name Unknown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lane v. Cermak Health Services et al
as 1:2022cv02634
Plaintiff:
Michael Lane
Defendant:
Cermak Health Services, Tom Dart and Doctor name unknown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mark Van Vleet v. Mt. Carmel Police Department, et al
as 22-1017
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARK A. VAN VLEET
Defendant / Appellee:
MT. CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT, CASSANDRA GOLDMAN, JAMES LANE and others
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.
