Cases 11 - 20 of 31
Mitchell v. Corizon Medical Services et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2016cv00575
Plaintiff:
Estevernico A. Mitchell
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services, Bobby Crocker and Michelle Copeland
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moore v. Corizon Medical Services et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2016cv00013
Plaintiff:
Thurmon E. Moore, II
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services , H. Hood , Doctor Stone and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Hallworth et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2015cv00584
Plaintiff:
Harold Williams
Defendant:
Rich Hallworth, Mrs. Copeland, Mr. Ellis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Traywick v. Thomas et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2015cv00372
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Shaun Traywick
Defendant:
Kim Tobias Thomas, Woodrow A. Myers, Jr. , Dr. Crocker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hickman v. Jones et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2015cv00352
Plaintiff:
Edward Philpot Hickman
Defendant:
Karla Jones, Luther Strange, Kim Tobias Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Joslyn v. Corizon Medical Services et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2015cv00297
Plaintiff:
Christopher Michael Joslyn
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services and Nurse Long
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dudley v. Corizon Medical Services et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2015cv00287
Plaintiff:
John Patrick Dudley
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services, Sgt. Calvin, Nurse Long and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mayo v. Darbouze et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2015cv00127
Plaintiff:
David Lee Mayo
Defendant:
Dr. Darbouze and Corizon Medical Services
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barnes v. Corizon Medical Services (INMATE 2)
as 2:2015cv00057
Plaintiff:
Ronald Dale Barnes
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harrison v. Corizon Medical Services (INMATE 1)
as 2:2014cv01251
Plaintiff:
Kenneth R. Harrison
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services
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.
