Cases 11 - 20 of 384
PRINGLE v. INDIANA GOVERNMENT
as 2:2023cv00246
Plaintiff:
ROGER PRINGLE
Defendant:
INDIANA GOVERNMENT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
REGAN v. JONES et al
as 2:2023cv00249
Plaintiff:
LEROY REGAN
Defendant:
ROGER JONES, U.S.P. TERRE HAUTE F.B.O.P. HEALTH SERVICE DEPT. REAL PARTY and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
ROGERS v. BAGIESKI et al
as 1:2023cv00824
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER ROGERS
Defendant:
M. BAGIESKI, C. BALES and CENTURION HEALTH CARE SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STARKS v. WELLS et al
as 2:2023cv00211
Plaintiff:
DEVON E. STARKS
Defendant:
J. WELLS, VIGO COUNTY SECURITY CENTER, ROGERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ROGERS v. HEATHERLY et al
as 1:2023cv00596
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER ROGERS
Defendant:
JESSICA HEATHERLY, M. SUMMERS, DIALLO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PRINGLE v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 2:2023cv00146
Petitioner:
ROGER PRINGLE
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 hb Removal - Petition for Habeas Corpus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv00029
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
ROGERS v. MCCLAMMY et al
as 1:2023cv00325
Plaintiff:
ZACHARY ROGERS
Defendant:
LAJUANE MCCLAMMY and NEW PRIME, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
CARLTON v. STRYKER CORPORATION et al
as 1:2022cv02478
Plaintiff:
ROGER CARLTON
Defendant:
STRYKER CORPORATION, STRYKER SOFIA MS, LLC and STRYKER SOFIA MS, LLC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
MORRIS v. MOUNT et al
as 1:2022cv02470
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS R MORRIS
Defendant:
JASON M. MOUNT, ROGER J DUVALL and STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
