Cases 11 - 20 of 7,773
Jeffrey Akard v. Mark Sevier, et al
as 24-1971
Plaintiff:
JEFFREY AKARD
Defendant:
MARK R. SEVIER, Warden, COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC and others
Garst v. City of Virden et al
as 3:2024cv03141
Plaintiff:
Mark E. Garst
Defendant:
City of Virden and Harold E. Gist
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Gonzales v. Swanson
as 1:2024cv00693
Plaintiff:
Antonio B Gonzales
Defendant:
Mark Swanson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davison v. Bailey et al
as 3:2024cv01443
Plaintiff:
Terell Davison
Defendant:
Carothers Bailey, Mark Williams and Anthony Wills
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ridley v. Vanihel et al
as 3:2024cv00460
Plaintiff:
Daren Earl Ridley and Daren E Ridley
Defendant:
Frank Vanihel, K Gilmore, John or Jane Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MONSIVAIS v. SEVIER
as 1:2024cv00939
Petitioner:
DAVID ARMANDO MONSIVAIS, IV
Respondent:
MARK SEVIER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MARSHALL v. ARAMARK et al
as 1:2024cv00906
Plaintiff:
AUGUSTUS MARSHALL
Defendant:
ARAMARK, GEO GROUP INC., MARK SEVIER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PINKERTON v. INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2024cv00913
Plaintiff:
DANZELL PINKERTON
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS and MARK SEVERE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al v. Leslie Urlaub, et al
as 24-8018
Petitioner:
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION SALARED EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN, BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE and others
Respondent:
LESLIE URLAUB, MARK PELLEGRINI and MARK FERRY
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv04357
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
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.
