Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Warner v. Godfrey et al
as 6:2022cv00008
Plaintiff:
Danny Lee Warner
Defendant:
Demetric Godfrey, Jim Salmonsen, Lynn Guyer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Washington v. Washington State Dept of Corrections et al
as 3:2017cv05728
Plaintiff:
William Washington
Defendant:
Washington State Dept of Corrections, Steven Sinclair, Kevin Bovenkamp and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Matthew Silva v. Jeffrey Uttecht, et al
as 16-35683
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MATTHEW G. SILVA
Defendant - Appellee:
JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, Warden, DAVID P. BAILEY, Coyote Ridge Corrections Center Associate Superintendent, SCANLON, Coyote Ridge Corrections Center Hearings Officer and others
Shore v. Warner et al
as 4:2015cv05044
Plaintiff:
Darren C Shore
Defendant:
Bernie Warner, Washington State Department of Corrections, G Steven Hammond and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Miles v. King County et al
as 2:2015cv00621
Plaintiff:
David Miles
Defendant:
King County, Daniel T Satterberg and John and Jane Does 1-15
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mourning v. All Pro Bail Bonding et al
as 3:2013cv01930
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Lee Mourning
Defendant:
All Pro Bail Bonding, John and Jane Does 1-15, William Gore and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
George Bartz v. Maggie Miller-Stout, et al
as 13-35380
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GEORGE BARTZ
Defendant - Appellee:
MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT, INMATE BANKING AND MAILROOM STAFF, JANE DOES 1-15 and others
George Bartz v. Maggie Miller-Stout, et al
as 10-35278
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GEORGE BARTZ
Defendant - Appellee:
MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT, INMATE BANKING AND MAILROOM STAFF, JANE DOES 1-15 and others
Christopher Grindling v. Roy Hirayama, et al
as 09-15512
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER GRINDLING
Defendant - Appellee:
ROY HIRAYAMA, Sgt., AARON WON, Officer, COUNTY OF MAUI and others
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.
