Cases 11 - 20 of 27
RANDOLPH v. CHAD LOVELAND & CONTRACT FACILITY STAFF et al
as 2:2018cv01686
Plaintiff:
ANGELO S. RANDOLPH
Defendant:
CHAD LOVELAND & CONTRACT FACILITY STAFF and MIKE JENKINS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Marzonie v. Soto et al
as 1:2018cv03070
Defendant:
Amling, Johnson, Jacqueline Soto and others
Plaintiff:
Zachariah Marzonie
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Marzonie v. Johnson et al
as 1:2018cv03069
Defendant:
Subordinate Amling, Amling Chilson Rec Center, Camille Taylor and others
Plaintiff:
Zachariah Marzonie
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hawkins v. Yordy et al
as 1:2017cv00341
Plaintiff:
Faron Raymond Hawkins
Defendant:
Keith Yordy, Coburn, Erbe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hawkins v. State of Idaho et al
as 1:2017cv00269
Plaintiff:
Faron R. Hawkins
Defendant:
State of Idaho, Department of Corrections, - Loveland and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cooley et al v. Baldwin et al
as 3:2017cv03117
Plaintiff:
Brian Cooley, Robert Loveland and Edwin Rodriguez
Defendant:
John R Baldwin, Jeff Korte, Wexford Medical Group and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cooley et al v. Baldwin et al
as 1:2017cv01834
Plaintiff:
Brian Cooley, Herman L Nitz, Jr, Robert Loveland and others
Defendant:
John R. Baldwin, Jeff Korte, Wexford Medical Group and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Grams v. Woods et al
as 4:2016cv00410
Plaintiff:
Jessie Thomas Grams
Defendant:
Shane Woods, John Grant, Nic Ferin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LOVELAND v. OWENS et al
as 1:2016cv02778
Plaintiff:
GREGORY LOVELAND
Defendant:
WARDEN DAVID S. OWENS and CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Loveland v. Scott et al
as 2:2015cv00621
Plaintiff:
Robert E. Loveland
Defendant:
Mike Scott, Andrew Small, Lourdes Carrero 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.
