Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Eason v. Raoul et al
as 3:2023cv50462
Defendant:
AFSCME, Kwame Raoul, J. B. Pritzker and others
Plaintiff:
Hannibal Eason
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MONKS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 3:2023cv00114
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER CRAIG MONKS
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and CENTURION MEDICAL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MONKS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2023cv01388
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER C. MONKS
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CENTURION MEDICAL and RECEPTION - DIAGNOSTIC CENTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Anderson v. Jeffreys et al
as 3:2021cv50319
Plaintiff:
Clarence Anderson
Defendant:
Rob Jeffreys, Sonja Nicklaus, Amber Allen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MODESITT v. INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2021cv01711
Plaintiff:
CHAD MODESITT
Defendant:
JULIA MONK, GEO GROUP INC., JESSICA DILLON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bernard v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2020cv50413
Defendant:
Sgt. Mrs. Rodriguez, Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Heferfinger and others
Plaintiff:
Eric E. Bernard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JACKSON v. MONK et al
as 2:2019cv00171
Defendant:
ROBERT CARTER, HERITAGE TRAILS CORRECTIONAL, DANIEL L. CONN and others
Plaintiff:
QUINTIN D. JACKSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BEATY v. THE GEO GROUP et al
as 1:2018cv04007
Defendant:
WARDEN EMERSON, MS MONK and GEO GROUP THE
Plaintiff:
ADAM T BEATY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Beaty v. GEO Group The et al
as 3:2018cv01012
Defendant:
Warden Emerson, Ms Monk and GEO Group The
Plaintiff:
Adam T Beaty
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Monk v. Dawn et al
as 3:2018cv01318
Plaintiff:
Marvin D. Monk
Defendant:
Michelle Dawn, Eric Edmister, S. Byrum 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.
