Cases 1 - 10 of 23
JENKINS v. ARMSTRONG COUNTY et al
as 2:2024cv00619
Plaintiff:
JANET L JENKINS
Defendant:
ARMSTRONG COUNTY, Warden PHILLIP SHAFFER, Doctor JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Happle v. Wilson et al
as 1:2024cv00090
Plaintiff:
Thomas-Martin Happle
Defendant:
Kathleen Wilson, Doctor John Doe and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Parker v. Hutnak, et al
as 23-2006
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID PARKER
Defendant / Appellee:
KIMBERLY HUTNAK, NOELLE K. CLAPHAM, as a representative of the court, and as an individual, PHYLLIS HUTNAK, as an individual and others
In Re: Parker
as 23-2005
Petitioner / Appellant:
DAVID PARKER, acting as guardian on behalf of R.P.
Respondent / Appellee:
KIMBERLY HUTNAK, NOELLE K. CLAPHAM, as a representative of the court, and as an individual, PHYLLIS HUTNAK, as an individual and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-20462
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Windless v. Avergis et al
as 2:2022cv02754
Plaintiff:
Demetra Elaine Windless
Defendant:
Doctor John Avergis, Doctor Mary Keegan, Lisa Canady and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Davis v. City of New York et al
as 1:2021cv05242
Plaintiff:
Washington Davis
Defendant:
Cleveland, Gary Schmansky, Hon. Carol R. Edmead and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
DAVIS v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al
as 5:2021cv00188
Plaintiff:
WASHINGTON DAVIS
Defendant:
CLEVELAND, GARY SCHMANSKY, GOVERNOR CUOMO and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Arnold v. Smith-Gilliam et al
as 1:2019cv05212
Defendant:
Shealane Smith-Gilliam, Doctor John Doe and John Doe(s)
Plaintiff:
Curtis Arnold
Doctor John's v. Manchester, Missouri et al
as 4:2019cv02739
Plaintiff:
Doctor John's
Defendant:
City of Manchester, Missouri and Melanie Rippetoe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
