Cases 31 - 40 of 237
WINDOM v. STAMPER et al
as 2:2022cv00004
Plaintiff:
AARON D. WINDOM
Defendant:
STAMPER, HAMMOND and ZATECKY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROSE v. ZATECKY et al
as 2:2022cv00005
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO ROSE
Defendant:
DUSHAN ZATECKY, ALSIP, STAMPER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STRONG v. HAMMOND
as 2:2021cv00477
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY STRONG
Defendant:
B. HAMMOND
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Hammonds v. Medical Rep. Chase et al
as 1:2021cv00097
Plaintiff:
Robert Paul Hammonds
Defendant:
Medical Rep. Chase, Medical Rep. Lovato, Sgt. Riley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WINDOM v. ZATECKY et al
as 2:2021cv00304
Plaintiff:
AARON D. WINDOM
Defendant:
DUSHAN ZATECKY, ALSIP, REAGLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris v. Benson et al
as 5:2021ct03213
Plaintiff:
George E. Harris
Defendant:
Jeremy R. Benson, Bradley N. Hammond and Sgt. Mallory
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hammond v. B.O.P. Springfield, MO et al
as 6:2021cv03131
Defendant:
Forrest City, Arkansas, Judge Unknown Harpool, B.O.P. Springfield, MO and others
Plaintiff:
Bobby Joseph Hammond
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
HAMMONDS v. ISSACS et al
as 1:2021cv00641
Defendant:
M. ISSACS, GEO GROUP INC., WEXFORD HEALTH and others
Plaintiff:
NATHAN HAMMONDS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lowe v. Hamilton County Jail et al
as 1:2021mc00006
Defendant:
Jim Hammond and Hamilton County Jail
Plaintiff:
Jerry Lowe, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Hammond v. Two Unknown Named Agents of the United States Marshals Service
as 4:2020cv04298
Plaintiff:
Jamarv Paremore Hammond and Jamarv P Hammond
Defendant:
Two Unknown Named Agents of the United States Marshals Service, Unknown Agent of the United States Marshal #1 and Unknown Agent of the United States Marshal #2
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.
