Cases 121 - 130 of 141
ANKH EL et al v. HILL et al
as 1:2013cv01471
Defendant:
M. ADDINGTON, ROBERT R. ALTICE, AMY BARBAR and others
Plaintiff:
MENES ANKH EL and TYREESE TAYLOR-BEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HUDSON v. FINNON et al
as 1:2013cv00841
Defendant:
A. FINNON and S. HILL
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER HUDSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAVIS v. HILL et al
as 1:2013cv00617
Petitioner:
GREGORY J. DAVIS
Respondent:
RUBEN HILL, Prosecutor TOM HIRSCHAUER, DAVID HOOPER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HILL v. KINNETT et al
as 2:2013cv00125
Defendant:
JOHN AND JANE DOE, JEFF GRIFFITH and BRYANT L. KINNETT
Plaintiff:
SYLVIA HILL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
HILL v. SNYDER et al
as 1:2013cv00068
Defendant:
BRIAN BUTLER, BEVERLY GILMORE, CHRISTOPHER NICHOLSON and others
Plaintiff:
ASHER B. HILL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HILL v. BROWN
as 2:2012cv00164
Respondent:
RICHARD BROWN
Petitioner:
ASHER B. HILL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
THOMAS v. BRADFORD et al
as 2:2011cv00119
Defendant:
JUDGE CALE BRADFORD, JUDGE S. HUGH DILLIN, MR. ROBERT J. HILL and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN ERIC THOMAS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TREACY v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2009cv00516
Petitioner:
TIMOTHY P. TREACY
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA, REUBEN HILL, FRANK ANDERSON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CLEGG et al v. DECAMPS et al
as 3:2009cv00047
Plaintiff:
DERRICK CLEGG
Defendant:
MARK DECAMPS, OFFICER HARRIS, OFFICER PYLANT and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
HILL v. RODDEN et al
as 4:2008cv00163
Plaintiff:
DAVID A HILL
Defendant:
DANIEL RODDEN, RICK ELLIOTT, SAM BEARD and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
