Cases 21 - 30 of 50
Challender v. Thom et al
as 5:2022cv05034
Plaintiff:
John Daniel Challender
Defendant:
Keven Thom, Lt. Houston, Sgt. Boal and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Quevedo v. Sullivan et al
as 5:2022cv05021
Petitioner:
Carlos C. Quevedo
Respondent:
Daniel Sullivan and The Attorney General of the State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bausch v. Sullivan et al
as 4:2022cv04026
Petitioner:
Joshua Allen Bausch
Respondent:
Daniel Sullivan and The Attorney General of the State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cody v. Clark et al
as 4:2022cv04010
Plaintiff:
William Cody
Defendant:
Doug Clark, Daniel Sullivan, Jennifer Dreiske and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Running Bird v. Mertens-Jones et al
as 4:2021cv04197
Plaintiff:
Harold Running Bird
Defendant:
Tammy Mertens-Jones, Douglas Clark, Timothy Reisch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gomez v. Officer Reiter et al
as 4:2021cv04179
Plaintiff:
Daniel Jose Gomez
Defendant:
Officer Reiter, Office Bobier, Colleen Moran and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gomez v. Mattson et al
as 4:2021cv04177
Petitioner:
Daniel Jose Gomez
Respondent:
Michael Mattson, Jerry Miller and Attorney General for the State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Mann v. Clark et al
as 4:2021cv04158
Petitioner:
Daniel Ray Mann
Respondent:
Doug Clark and Attorney General of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Choladem v. Minnehaha County Jail
as 4:2021cv04157
Plaintiff:
Daniel Choladem
Defendant:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gomez v. Dooley et al
as 4:2021cv04085
Respondent:
Robert Dooley and Attorney General of the State of South Dakota
Petitioner:
Daniel Jose Gomez
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.
