Cases 61 - 70 of 209
Harrell v. Brickhouse et al
as 1:2018cv01183
Plaintiff:
Chyvonne E. Harrell
Defendant:
William Brickhouse, Ph.D., MHM Correctional Services, Inc., Nekeya Dumas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00163
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Hadsell v. Baskin et al
as 4:2018cv00293
Plaintiff:
Christopher Hadsell
Defendant:
Barry Baskin, Christopher Bowen, Kimberly Campbell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2017cv01710
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv00268
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Edokobi v. Coakley Realty Management, LLC et al
as 8:2017cv02825
Plaintiff:
Emmanuel Edokobi
Defendant:
Coakley Realty Management, LLC, Rory Coakley, Donnie Baxter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harrell v. Mann et al
as 1:2017cv02499
Plaintiff:
Chyvonne E. Harrell
Defendant:
Jeffrey Mann, William Brickhouse , Correct Care Solutions, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Zein-al-abedeen et al v. Teolis et al
as 2:2017cv12063
Plaintiff:
Ali Anwar-Ali Zein-al-abedeen , R. S. , K. A. Z. and others
Defendant:
Perry Teolis , James Moran , Kevin Dailey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Erlin Mencias Avila v. Matthew Dailey, et al
as 17-7078
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Erlin Ever Mencias Avila
Defendant - Appellant:
Matthew Dailey
Defendant - Appellee:
Four Unidentified Metropolitan Police Department Officers
Jack v. County of Stanislaus et al
as 1:2017at00306
Plaintiff:
James Jack, Jr.
Defendant:
County of Stanislaus, Adam Christianson, Michael Dailey 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.
