Cases 11 - 20 of 65
MOTON v. MCKINNEY
as 1:2023cv01481
Plaintiff:
ANDRE MOTON
Defendant:
KYLE MCKINNEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moton et al v. City of Rockford et al
as 3:2023cv50120
Plaintiff:
Teshayla Moton and Shenita Moton
Defendant:
City Of Rockford and J. Vazquez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MOTON v. PRYOR et al
as 1:2023cv00380
Plaintiff:
ANDRE MOTON
Defendant:
KRISTINE G. PRYOR and INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MOTON v. CARTER et al
as 1:2023cv00351
Plaintiff:
ANDRE MOTON
Defendant:
ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., DENNIS REAGLE and INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MOTON v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA LLC et al
as 1:2022cv02134
Plaintiff:
ANDRE MOTON
Defendant:
WEXFORD OF INDIANA LLC, ELAINE PERDUE, LISA HAMBLEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Due v. USA et al
as 3:2022cv00999
Plaintiff:
Randall David Due
Defendant:
USA, B. Moton, Jeffery Cheeks and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
UNDERWOOD, MOTON, POINTER, PARKS, PIERCE v. CARTER et al
as 1:2022cv00912
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER A. UNDERWOOD, ANDRE MOTON, GERROD POINTER and others
Defendant:
ERIC J. HOLCOMB, ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., DR. DAUSS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MOTON v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA LLC et al
as 1:2022cv00399
Plaintiff:
ANDRE MOTON
Defendant:
WEXFORD OF INDIANA LLC, CHRISTINE LIEDTKE and ARNOLD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MOTON v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC et al
as 1:2021cv02677
Plaintiff:
ANDRE MOTON
Defendant:
WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, KNIESER, LIEDTKE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv00833
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
