Cases 1 - 10 of 38
ANDERSON v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 2:2024cv00156
Petitioner:
LLOYD ANDERSON
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROWLISON v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2024cv00301
Plaintiff:
LLOYD ROWLISON
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHRISTINA REAGLE, TRICIA PRETORIUS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
VERBLE v. ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC. et al
as 1:2023cv01656
Plaintiff:
SHAWN J. VERBLE
Defendant:
ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC., DENNIS QUAKENBUSH, FRANK P LLOYD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ELDER v. BEDWELL et al
as 2:2023cv00337
Defendant:
BOBBIE RIGGS, DANIEL BEDWELL, BARBRA and others
Plaintiff:
LLOYD T. ELDER, SR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CAMERON v. RULE et al
as 2:2022cv00333
Plaintiff:
BRUCE LLOYD CAMERON
Defendant:
T. RULE, R. TURNER and A. ROGERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
MYNATT v. REAGLE, et al
as 1:2022cv00197
Plaintiff:
JARED MYNATT
Defendant:
DENNIS REAGLE, ERIC HOLCOMB, ROBERT CARTER, JR. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ELDER v. DOBSON et al
as 2:2020cv00272
Defendant:
RIPLEY, PARISH and DOBSON
Plaintiff:
LLOYD T. ELDER, SR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HAYES v. ZATECKY et al
as 1:2021cv00630
Defendant:
MATLOCK, T. TURNER, M. CARTER and others
Plaintiff:
QUINTERO HAYES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PHILLIPS v. PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL
as 1:2021cv00411
Plaintiff:
JAMES E. PHILLIPS and JAMES EDWARD PHILLIPS
Defendant:
C Allen, C. LLOYD, REAGAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ELDER v. MEAD et al
as 2:2020cv00270
Defendant:
MEAD and OFFICER CARR
Plaintiff:
LLOYD T. ELDER, SR.
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.
