Cases 11 - 20 of 35
TAYLOR v. MEDLOCK et al
as 4:2022cv00093
Plaintiff:
DAVID JASON TAYLOR
Defendant:
CODY MEDLOCK, FRANK LOOP, CAPTAIN FURMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SNYDER v. HANCOCK COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2022cv01378
Plaintiff:
DENNIS PATRICK SNYDER
Defendant:
HANCOCK COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, BRADLEY BURKHART, BRIDGET FOY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BESECKER v. LOOP et al
as 4:2022cv00084
Plaintiff:
COURTNEY BESECKER
Defendant:
FRANK LOOP, BRANDON REARDON, COLTON MCPHEETERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TAYLOR v. FLOYD COUNTY SHERIFF et al
as 4:2021cv00127
Plaintiff:
DAVID JASON TAYLOR
Defendant:
FLOYD COUNTY SHERIFF, NAME UNKNOWN, B. O'LOUGHLIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BESECKER v. LOOP et al
as 4:2021cv00112
Plaintiff:
COURTNEY BESECKER
Defendant:
FRANK LOOP, B. REARDON, ZACHARY SCHAEFER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NICHOLS v. MYERS
as 1:2021cv01003
Plaintiff:
ERNEST NICHOLS, JR.
Defendant:
MATT MYERS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NICHOLS v. GOVERNMENT OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY et al
as 1:2021cv00569
Defendant:
BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY and CINDY WEISNER
Plaintiff:
ERNEST NICHOLS, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOYD v. TIPTON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2020cv01256
Defendant:
JAY D. RICH, TIPTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, TONY FRAWLEY and others
Plaintiff:
DEREK L. BOYD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NICHOLS v. VIGIL
as 2:2019cv00295
Defendant:
VIGIL
Plaintiff:
DONALD NICHOLS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
NICHOLS v. WATSON et al
as 2:2019cv00183
Defendant:
USP-TERRE HAUTE/HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION AND UNKNOWN STAFF (DOCTORS) AND (PHYSICIANS ASSISTANTS), A. SPRINGER, J. DODGE and others
Plaintiff:
DONALD NICHOLS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
