Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Gibbs v. Utilization Review Committee
as 24-891
Plaintiff:
DAVID GIBBS
Defendant:
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FEDUS, Dr., PILLAI, Dr. and others
Petteway v. Connecticut Department of Corrections
as 23-8047
Plaintiff:
TAVERAS, Garner CI, CHRISTOPHER DEVEAU, ISAIAH BONEY and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER Q. PETTEWAY
Defendant / Appellee:
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Which includes, but may not be limited to The Conn State Department Public Health; Securs TECH. Inc; Unity Products, LLC; The United States Post Office Post Master Gomaps, CRAIG WASHINGTON, Warden, Individual and Official Capacity, ANGEL QUIROS, Commissioner of Corrections, Individual and Official Capacity and others
Goode v. Cook
as 23-7521
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JASON GOODE
Defendant / Appellee:
ROLLIN COOK, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction, in his official and individual capacities, SCOTT SEMPLE, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction, Retired, in his individual capacity, WILLIAM MURPHY, Director, Programs and Treatment Division, Connecticut Department of Correction, in his official and individual capacities and others
Sosa v. Richeson
as 21-2945
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Andres R. Sosa
Defendant / Appellee:
Dr. Robert Richeson, Kathleen Maurer, individually and officially, Kirsten Shea, individually and officially and others
Davis v. Furey
as 21-1828
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael Davis
Defendant / Appellee:
Miss Keri, Nursing Staff, individual capacity and Miss Inderia, Nursing Staff, individual capacity
Defendant:
Richard Furey, Regional Chief Operation Officer, individual capacity, Nigel S. Rodney, Advanced Practiced Registered Nurse, individual capacity, State of Connecticut Department of Correction and others
Gonzalez v. Connecticut Department of Corr
as 21-1751
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Patria Gonzalez
Defendant / Appellee:
Connecticut Department of Correction, Department of Correction, Angel Quiros, Department of Correction Interim Commissioner, in his individual capacity, Emily Kennedy, Human Resources, in her individual capacity and others
Defendant:
Commissioner Rollin Cook, In his individual capacity
Hubert v. Callender
as 20-2670
Defendant / Appellee:
Cicero Callender, Lieutenant, in his individual and in his official capacities
Plaintiff:
Etienne Hubert
Defendant:
Connecticut Department of Corrections, Kevin Curry, Correction Officer, in his individual and in his official capacities, Michael Davis, Deputy Warden, in his indivudal and in his official capacities and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Sharone Hubert
Hutchins v. State Supreme Courts Civil/Cri
as 20-450
Defendant / Appellee:
Social Security Judges, Dept of Social Services, State of Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Barry Hutchins
Reynolds v. Arnone
as 19-2858
Defendant / Appellant:
Leo Arnone, Commissioner Connecticut Department of Corrections, Individual Capacity, Edward Maldonado, Warden N.C.I., Individual Capacity, Angel Quiros, Regional Warden N.C.I., Official and Individual Capacity and others
Defendant:
Jane Doe, Connecticut Department of Corrections, Official and Individual Capacity, John Doe, Connecticut Department of Corrections, Official and Individual Capacity and Jason Cahill, Captain at N.C.I., Official and Individual Capacity
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Richard Reynolds
Al-Bukhari v. Correction
as 19-1011
Defendant / Appellee:
Edward Maldonado, sued in their individual and official capacity, Nick Rodriguez, sued in their individual and official capacity, Collins, Correctional Officer, sued in their individual and official capacity and others
Defendant:
Anthony Bruno, sued in their individual and official capacity, Connecticut Department of Correction, sued in their individual and official capacity, Angel Quiros, sued in their individual and official capacity and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Ja Qure Al-Bukhari
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.
