Cases 11 - 20 of 268
Jones v. Fender
as 1:2023cv01866
Petitioner:
Lee Jones
Respondent:
Warden Douglas Fender
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Easley v. Nolan et al
as 3:2023cv01756
Plaintiff:
David Easley
Defendant:
Aaron J. Nolan, Robia Jones-Barringer, Lucas County Jail and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Jones v. Gray
as 4:2023cv01650
Petitioner:
Aaron L. Jones, Sr.
Respondent:
Warden David W. Gray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mauer v. Jacobs et al
as 5:2023cv01636
Plaintiff:
Steven C. Mauer
Defendant:
Norman Jacobs and Hope L. Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Allah-U-Akbar v. Ashtabula County et al
as 1:2023cv01631
Plaintiff:
Malik Allah-U-Akbar and Odraye Jones
Defendant:
Ashtabula County, City of Ashtabula, Ashtabula County Sheriff's Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mauer v. Jacobs et al
as 5:2023cv01510
Plaintiff:
Steven C. Mauer
Defendant:
Norman Jacobs and Hope L. Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Pluff et al
as 3:2023cv01492
Plaintiff:
Oshae Jones
Defendant:
Ashlyn Pluff, Samantha Kill, City of Toledo and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bradbury et al v. Scott et al
as 2:2023cv02355
Plaintiff:
William F. Bradbury, Jr., Danny E. Starner, Christopher Ford and others
Defendant:
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), JPay/Securus Technologies, Viapath Technologies and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ludwick v. Teague et al
as 1:2023cv00460
Plaintiff:
Christopher G. Ludwick
Defendant:
Capt. Brandon Teague, C.O. Nathan Rook, C.O. Howe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Fender
as 1:2023cv01383
Petitioner:
Lee Jones
Respondent:
Warden Douglas Fender
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
