Cases 1 - 10 of 37
James Wright, Jr. v. Kimberly Butler, et al
as 20-1926
Defendant / Appellee:
MINH T. SCOTT, Chairman of the Adjustment Committee, REBECCA COWAN, Member of the Adjustment Committee, KIMBERLY BUTLER, Warden and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES E. WRIGHT, JR.
HAMILTON v. CLEAN SWEEP PLUS, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv00529
Defendant:
CLEAN SWEEP PLUS, INC., CARMEN RAMSEY and T. SCOTT RAMSEY
Plaintiff:
CIARA HAMILTON
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Holbrook v Scott et al
as 2:2019cv00108
Defendant:
HENIFF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, LLC, CLIFFORD T. SCOTT, JR., Heniff Transportation Holdings LLC and others
Plaintiff:
CHRISTINA HOLBROOK
Not Yet Classified:
Daniel W Glavin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Ryburn v. Obaisi et al
as 1:2019cv00728
Defendant:
Imlmpwm Stateville Maintaince Chief Engineer, Lydia, Mid-Eastern Male RN and others
Plaintiff:
Thomas V. Ryburn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Scott v. Mount et al
as 3:2018cv01843
Defendant:
C.O. Ewing, Travis Allen, Capt. Mount and others
Plaintiff:
Michael T. Scott
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Scott v. Mount et al
as 1:2018cv05816
Defendant:
C.O. Ewing, C.O. Haynes, Capt. Mount and others
Plaintiff:
Michael T. Scott
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brandon v. Baldwin et al
as 1:2018cv01137
Plaintiff:
Fabian Brandon
Defendant:
John Baldwin, Marcus Hardy, Michael P Melvin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rogelio Orozco v. Kim Butler, et al
as 18-1635
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROGELIO OROZCO
Defendant - Appellee:
KIM BUTLER, MINN T. SCOTT, REBECCA COWAN and others
LEVY v. MITCHELL et al
as 1:2017cv03090
Defendant:
JOHN DOE (1), JOHN DOE (2), T. SCOTT HUNT and others
Plaintiff:
GAI LEVY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
James v. Baldwin et al
as 3:2017cv00623
Plaintiff:
Jed James, 3rd
Defendant:
John Baldwin, Kim Butler, C/O Garner 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.
