Cases 11 - 18 of 18
Lim v. Head, Department of Human Service, Illinois et al
as 9:2013cv00426
Petitioner:
Khor Chin Lim
Respondent:
Head, Department of Human Service, Illinois and Hospital Administrator, Elgin Mental Health Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gunderson v. Brock et al
as 1:2012cv06768
Plaintiff:
Sean Gunderson
Defendant:
Paul Brock, Elgin Mental Health Center, Jeff Pharis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Larry Banks v. Brayan Thomas, et al
as 12-1375
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LARRY M. BANKS
Defendant - Appellee:
BRAYAN THOMAS, Facility Directory, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Director of Alton Mental Health Center, MARTANI, Psychiatrist, in his individual capacity and official capacity as psychiatrist of Alton Mental Health Center, DAVID DUNKER, in his individual capacity and official capacity as court personal and others
Andrew Allen v. Douglas Chang, et al
as 11-2244
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANDREW N. ALLEN
Defendant - Appellee:
ELGIN MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, DOCTOR CHONG and DOCTOR HUSAIN
Moore v. Dart et al
as 1:2009cv06737
Plaintiff:
Percy Bell Moore
Defendant:
Thomas Dart, Cook County Dep. of Corrections, Coca Cola Company and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Allen v. Elgin Mental Health Center et al
as 1:2009cv00379
Plaintiff:
Andrew N Allen
Defendant:
Elgin Mental Health Center
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Esang v. Doe et al
as 1:2007cv03540
Plaintiff:
Asuquo Esang
Defendant:
John Doe, Jean Doe and Elgin Mental Health Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moore v. Elgin Mental Health Center et al
as 1:2007cv02244
Plaintiff:
Percy Bell Moore
Defendant:
Elgin Mental Health Center, Coke Cola Coporate Service Management, Chicago Police 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.
