Cases 41 - 50 of 196
SCHROCK v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 1:2022cv01698
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW SCHROCK and MATTHEW ALAN SCHROCK, JR.
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, GEO GROUP, INC., ROBERT E. CARTER, JR. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
VELEZ v. I.D.O.C. CENTRAL OFFICE et al
as 1:2022cv01624
Plaintiff:
ANGELO VELEZ, JR.
Defendant:
I.D.O.C. CENTRAL OFFICE, ROBERT E. CARTER, DICK BROWN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
AKARD v. CARTER et al
as 2:2022cv00338
Plaintiff:
JEFFREY E. AKARD
Defendant:
ROBERT CARTER, DICK BROWN, MARK SEVIER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAVIS v. SEVIER
as 1:2022cv01528
Petitioner:
RICCI DAVIS, JR.
Respondent:
MARK SEVIER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PLATO v. SEVIER et al
as 1:2022cv01483
Petitioner:
ROBERT J. PLATO, JR.
Respondent:
MARK SEVIER and ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SALHAB v. SEVIER
as 1:2022cv01446
Petitioner:
AMJAD SALHAB
Respondent:
MARK SEVIER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
AKARD v. CARTER et al
as 1:2022cv01164
Plaintiff:
JEFFREY E. AKARD
Defendant:
ROBERT CARTER, DICK BROWN, MARK SEVIER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TURNER v. SEVIER
as 1:2022cv01127
Petitioner:
SPENCER TURNER
Respondent:
MARK SEVIER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GATES v. MARTIN et al
as 3:2022cv00054
Plaintiff:
JOHN GATES
Defendant:
BAILEY MARTIN, JENNIFER SIMS and MARK SEVIER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
LOVE v. SEVIER et al
as 1:2022cv00811
Plaintiff:
TONY LIONEL LOVE
Defendant:
MARK SEVIER, JOSEPH, SANFORD and others
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.
