Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Garwood v. Minnesota State Patrol et al
as 0:2024cv00800
Plaintiff:
Rick Lee Garwood
Defendant:
Minnesota State Patrol, Nick Otterson, Morrison County Jail and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bakambia v. Craane et al
as 0:2022cv02922
Plaintiff:
Marc Amouri Bakambia
Defendant:
Stephen Craane, Tim Walz, Luke Dehaan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Walz et al
as 0:2019cv02612
Defendant:
Bill Pal-Freeman, Michelle Smith, Eddie Miles and others
Plaintiff:
Tony Dejuan Jackson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dudley v. Miles et al
as 0:2013cv02737
Plaintiff:
Terrance Alfonzo Dudley
Defendant:
Eddie Miles, Tom Roy, Paige Lemay and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DeVillion v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al
as 0:2013cv02134
Plaintiff:
Kevin John DeVillion
Defendant:
Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Lucinda Jesson and others
Bandy v. Commissioner of Correction et al
as 0:2013cv02209
Plaintiff:
Joe H. Bandy, III
Defendant:
Commissioner of Correction, McDonald Will, Jeff Peterson and others
Favors v. Hoover et al
as 0:2013cv00428
Plaintiff:
Joseph Anthony Favors
Defendant:
Michelle Hoover, Cal Ludeman, Lucinda Jesson and others
Barber v. Dayton et al
as 0:2012cv03101
Plaintiff:
Myron Barber
Defendant:
Mark Dayton, Rick Dusprehofp, David Miller and others
Wills v. Jesson et al
as 0:2011cv03429
Plaintiff:
Wesley Elmer Wills
Defendant:
Lucinda Jesson, Dennis Benson, Kevin Moser and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Krych v. DHS MSOP-ML, April 6, 2011, Client Placement Committee members and participants et al
as 0:2011cv03091
Plaintiff:
Chris Krych
Defendant:
DHS MSOP-ML, April 6, 2011, Client Placement Committee members and participants, Kent Johansen, Barbara Bishop and others
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.
