Cases 11 - 20 of 56
Bustillos v. ISP et al
as 4:2018cv00322
Plaintiff:
Sabastian Bustillos
Defendant:
ISP, SURC Committee, Chapel Charles Marmer and others
Interested Party:
William A Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Piper v. ISP et al
as 4:2018cv00317
Plaintiff:
Kieth M. Piper
Defendant:
ISP, SURC Committee, Chapel Charles Marmer and others
Interested Party:
William A Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gonzalez v. ISP et al
as 4:2018cv00321
Defendant:
ISP, SURC Committee, Chapel Charles Marmer and others
Plaintiff:
Rodolfo Gonzalez
Interested Party:
William A Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bloch v. ISP et al
as 4:2018cv00324
Defendant:
ISP, SURC Committee, Chapel Charles Marmer and others
Plaintiff:
Demetreis Bloch
Interested Party:
William A Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Province v. ISP et al
as 4:2018cv00318
Defendant:
ISP, SURC Committee, Chapel Charles Marmer and others
Plaintiff:
Matthew Province
Interested Party:
William A Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Martinez v. ISP et al
as 4:2018cv00325
Defendant:
ISP, SURC Committee, Chapel Charles Marmer and others
Plaintiff:
Christopher Martinez
Interested Party:
William A Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. ISP et al
as 4:2018cv00323
Defendant:
ISP, SURC Committee, Chapel Charles Marmer and others
Plaintiff:
Cedrick C. Thomas
Interested Party:
William A Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Worthington v. ISP et al
as 4:2018cv00320
Plaintiff:
Austin Worthington
Defendant:
ISP, SURC Committee, Chapel Charles Marmer and others
Interested Party:
William A Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MARTIN v. ZANTECKY et al
as 1:2018cv02443
Defendant:
LARRY FOWLER, PENNY EDEN, ISP and others
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY C. MARTIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BARBEE v. WARDEN -- ISP
as 1:2018cv02060
Respondent:
WARDEN -- ISP
Petitioner:
DAVID BARBEE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
