Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Kenneth McPherson v. Robert Patton
as 23-1938
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KENNETH MCPHERSON and ERIC SIMMONS
Defendant / Appellee:
DETECTIVE ROBERT PATTON and DETECTIVE FRANK BARLOW
Defendant:
BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT and STATE'S ATTORNEY
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv00696
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv14766
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv00139
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McPherson et al v. Baltimore Police Department et al
as 1:2020cv00795
Defendant:
Dave Neverdon, Frank Barlow, Baltimore Police Department and others
Plaintiff:
Kenneth McPherson and Eric Simmons
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jackson v. Godinez et al
as 1:2014cv01108
Plaintiff:
Joel Jackson
Defendant:
S.A. Godinez , Michael P. Randle, Richard Birkey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jackson v. Godinez et al
as 1:2013cv02888
Plaintiff:
Joel Jackson
Defendant:
S.A. Godinez , Michael P. Randle, Richard Birkey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
The City of Houston v. Club Fetish et al DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED
as 4:2013cv00944
Defendant:
Club Fetish , Norman Eric Simmons and Osrick Mitchell
Plaintiff:
The City Of Houston
Counter_claimant:
Norman Eric Simmons and Mitchell Osrick
Counter_defendant:
The City Of Houston Texas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Delgado v. Rutherford et al
as 3:2009cv01224
Plaintiff:
Juan D. Delgado
Defendant:
John H. Rutherford, Juanita Dixon, William W. Mauldin 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.
