Cases 1 - 10 of 22
WILLIAMS v. HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2021cv02949
Petitioner:
Steven Jason Williams
Respondent:
HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
HAMILTON v. HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2021cv01949
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL H. HAMILTON
Defendant:
HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
THOMAS v. HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2021cv01840
Plaintiff:
GENTLE THOMAS, JR.
Defendant:
HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
THOMAS v. BABCZAK et al
as 1:2020cv00598
Defendant:
BRIAN M. BABCZAK, JOSH CAREY and HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL
Plaintiff:
REGGIE THOMAS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JOHNSTON v. QUAKENBUSH et al
as 1:2020cv00422
Defendant:
UNDERWOOD, HAINES, QUAKENBUSH and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL S. JOHNSTON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BALE v. HAMILTON COUNTY et al
as 1:2020cv00113
Defendant:
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., D/B/A CORIZON, LLC, MATTHEW LAWSON, EL HADJI NDLAYE and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES D. BALE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TYLER A. BALE, DECEASED and JAMES D. BALE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MAYS v. HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2019cv04503
Plaintiff:
STEVEN E. MAYS
Defendant:
HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL and STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
NORRIS et al v. EMERSON et al
as 1:2019cv00495
Plaintiff:
COURTNEY SHAWN NORRIS, JOHN DOE 1 and DEREK ANTHONY ANDERSON
Defendant:
JESSE EMERSON, ANDRE MIKSHA, PAUL KAUSHALL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HUBBARD v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 1:2018cv01229
Defendant:
ARAMARK CORRECTIONS SERVICES, LLC, CORIZON CORRECTIONS MEDICAL CORPORATION, JOHN DOE, 1-25 and others
John Doe:
BYRON HUBBARD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
EADS v. HILL
as 4:2017cv00179
Petitioner:
GLENN EADS
Respondent:
HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF and CURTIS HILL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
