Cases 41 - 50 of 181
Teddy Driver v. Ty Solomon, et al
as 22-1866
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TEDDY H. DRIVER
Defendant / Appellee:
TY SOLOMON, Kokomo Police Officer #372, TRAVIS WILLIAMS, Kokomo Police Officer #387, CODY RAYLS, Kokomo Police Officer, a.k.a. OFFICER CODY RAYLES and others
SHORTER v. VANIHEL et al
as 2:2022cv00187
Plaintiff:
ROBERT SHORTER
Defendant:
FRANK VANIHEL, FAUST, WALKER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JOHNSON v. SHERIFF MADISON COUNTY et al
as 1:2022cv00783
Plaintiff:
DANIEL JOHNSON
Defendant:
SCOTT MELLINGER, TYLER JUGG, CARPENTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Carpenter, Terry v. Liu et al
as 3:2022cv00110
Plaintiff:
Terry Carpenter
Defendant:
Dr. Liu, Mrs. Maassen, Dr. Lily Liu and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SHELLY v. FISCHER et al
as 2:2022cv00065
Plaintiff:
MARZONO SHELLY
Defendant:
FISCHER, FRANK VANIHEL, NATOSHA ENGLISH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CARPENTER v. FAUST
as 2:2022cv00043
Plaintiff:
LAWRENCE CARPENTER
Defendant:
FAUST
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bernard v. Cassidy et al
as 3:2022cv50025
Plaintiff:
Eric E. Bernard and Terrell King
Defendant:
Jacob Cassidy, Ann Ganger, Nurse Thielen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Carpenter v. CCDOC Cook County Jail et al
as 1:2022cv00013
Plaintiff:
Stanley M Carpenter
Defendant:
CCDOC Cook County Jail, Yu, Cermak Health and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CARPENTER v. FREEMAN et al
as 4:2021cv00190
Plaintiff:
ANDREW J. CARPENTER
Defendant:
KENNETH FREEMAN, TAYLOR MCELFRESH, RONALD HAYES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Henson v. Ulrick et al
as 1:2021cv00414
Plaintiff:
David Brian Henson
Defendant:
J Ulrick, D LaRowe, J Hicks and others
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.
