Cases 11 - 20 of 22
Neely v. Briggs et al
as 3:2015cv00308
Plaintiff:
Charles Albert Neely
Defendant:
R. L. Briggs, D. Artis and J.W. Moss
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWENS v. EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2014cv02689
Plaintiff:
MONTEZ M. BOWENS
Defendant:
EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN WETEL, KLOPOTOSKI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Rodgers
as 3:2013cv01052
Plaintiff:
William Thomas
Defendant:
J.W. Rodgers and D. Fisher
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dukes v. Osborne et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2013cv00232
Plaintiff:
J.W. Dukes
Defendant:
Jerome Osborne, M.D. Ginyard and Horace Burton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Guy Barnes v. AR Department of Corrections, et al
as 11-3810
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Guy Clayton Barnes
Defendant - Appellee:
Arkansas Department of Correction, Danny Burl, originally sued as Burls, John Belken, originally sued as Belkens and others
Howard v. Kraus et al
as 2:2010cv00434
Plaintiff:
Johnnie Fitzgerald Howard
Defendant:
C. Kraus, D. Snider, M. H. Meier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cole v. Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2010cv00222
Plaintiff:
Lorenzo Cole
Defendant:
Department of Corrections, James McDonough, Walter McNeil and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
v. Cole et al
as 2:2009cv00771
Plaintiff:
Lorenzo Cole
Defendant:
Secretary of Department of Corrections, Warden John Doe, S.M Leahey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adams v. Fischer et al
as 1:2009cv02068
Plaintiff:
Jerry Adams
Defendant:
Brian Fischer, Glenn Goord, Raymond Cunningham and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heavner v. Woods et al
as 4:2008cv00163
Plaintiff:
John L Heavner
Defendant:
Woods Tim, John Doe, Ron Snodgrass 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.
