Cases 11 - 20 of 5,845
Cole v. Tennessee Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2024cv00751
Plaintiff:
Brian Keith Cole
Defendant:
Tennessee Department of Corrections, CoreCivic, Trousdale Turner Correctional Center and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Londell Alston v. City of Rock Hill
as 24-6594
Plaintiff:
LONDELL LASHUN ALSTON
Defendant:
CITY OF ROCK HILL, COUNTY OF YORK, ROCK HIL POLICE DEPARTMENT JOHN DOE #1 and others
Burke v. Masters
as 24-20277
Plaintiff:
Andrew Burke
Defendant:
Deputy Benjamin Masters, Deputy Guillermo Vargas-Perez, Deputy Augustine Barron and others
Smith v. Gordon et al
as 1:2024cv05042
Plaintiff:
Ricardo Dale Smith
Defendant:
Andrew Gordon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Huffman v. Huff et al
as 7:2024cv00383
Plaintiff:
Jullian Andrew Pres Huffman
Defendant:
Neil Huff, Jennifer Lester, Brett Hall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Huffman v. Helton
as 7:2024cv00385
Plaintiff:
Jullian Andrew Huffman
Defendant:
Helton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hale-El (PS) v. Lockheed Martin Space et al
as 1:2024cv01665
Plaintiff:
Colby Jerome Hale-El
Defendant:
Lockheed Martin Space, Amy Jackson and Andrew
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sherman, Andrew v. Radcliffe, Richard et al
as 3:2024cv00400
Plaintiff:
Andrew Charles Sherman
Defendant:
Honorable Judge Richard A. Radcliffe, District Attorney Kevin Croninger and Attorney Rachel Pisors
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ruggiero v. Rogers et al
as 9:2024cv00769
Plaintiff:
Anthony Ruggiero
Defendant:
Donald D. Rogers, Mark E. Carrow, Joseph H. Noeth and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dammean Moss v. Andrew Dyer, et al
as 24-1514
Plaintiff:
DAMMEAN R. MOSS
Defendant:
ANDREW DYER, WENDI WALWORTH, KATHLEEN PARSONS and others
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.
