Prison Condition Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 180
Dida v. Doe 1
as 3:2024cv01407
Plaintiff: Mohamed Dida
Defendant: Jane Doe 1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Elghembri v. California Dept. of Correction & Rehabilitation et al
as 3:2024cv02769
Plaintiff: Ahmed Mohamed Elghembri
Defendant: California Dept. of Correction & Rehabilitation and Ronald Broomfield
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Elghembri v. Doe, Dentist et al
as 3:2024cv02771
Plaintiff: Ahmed Mohamed Elghembri
Defendant: Jane Doe, Dentist, John Doe, Dentist and Theodore Ng
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mohamed Dida v. Kimberly Hvarre
as 24-1793
Plaintiff: MOHAMED DIDA
Defendant: KIMBERLY HVARRE
Jesse Perez v. Mohammed Siddiqui
as 24-1766
Plaintiff: JESSE R. PEREZ
Defendant: MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, Medical Director, Wexford
Charles Thornton v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., et al
as 24-1538
Plaintiff: CHARLES E. THORNTON
Defendant: WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., MARY JO ZIMMER, Nurse Practitioner, HCU at Menard CC and MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI
Charles Robinson v. Latoya Hughes, et al
as 24-1519
Plaintiff: CHARLES MOHAMED ROBINSON, also known as Charles D. Robinson
Defendant: LATOYA HUGHES, DISTRICT ONE PAROLE RE-ENTRY GROUP DEPUTY CHIEF, DISTRICT ONE PAROLE RE-ENTRY GROUP SUPERVISOR and others
Steven Murphy v. Mohammed Siddiqui, et al
as 24-1506
Plaintiff: STEVEN MURPHY
Defendant: MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, Doctor and ANTHONY WILLS
Steven Murphy v. Mohammed Siddiqui, et al
as 24-1505
Plaintiff: STEVEN MURPHY
Defendant: MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, ANTHONY WILLS and ANGELA CRAIN
Washington et al v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2024cv00391
Plaintiff: James R Washington, Hector Cubero, Jr, Derrick Jones and others
Defendant: Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Kevin A Carr, Jared Hoy 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.


Why Is My Information Online?