Cases 21 - 30 of 51
BOYD et al v. REAVES et al
as 1:2020cv01844
Defendant:
WEXFORD OF INDIANA, L.L.C., LOPEZ, COMMISSIONER and others
Plaintiff:
RONNIE BUTRUM, DEREK BOYD and DAWAYNE DILLARD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Haylock v. Geo Correction-Big Spring Flightline et al
as 1:2019cv00115
Defendant:
Bobby Thompson, John Doe, Geo Correction-Big Spring Flightline and others
Plaintiff:
Jorge Colomer Haylock
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Martinez v. GEO Corrections et al
as 1:2019cv00128
Plaintiff:
Levi Martinez
Defendant:
State of Idaho, GEO Corrections and Idaho Correctional Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SAVAGE v. WEXFORD MEDICAL GROUP et al
as 1:2019cv00992
Plaintiff:
BRANDON SAVAGE
Defendant:
E. GILBERT, GEO CORRECTION AND DETENTION, HEATHER DAVIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nunez v. New Mexico Corrections Department et al
as 2:2019cv00063
Defendant:
Correctional Properties Trust, Jane Doe, Gregg Marcantel and others
Plaintiff:
Andrew Nunez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Conroy #096414 v. Schiff et al
as 3:2018cv08073
Plaintiff:
Jack Charles Conroy
Defendant:
Lawrence Schiff, Tiffany Thompson, Unknown Herrick and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Milligan v. GEO Corrections and Detentions et al
as 1:2017cv01211
Plaintiff:
Anthony Milligan
Defendant:
GEO Corrections and Detentions, Vincent Horton, Sandra Dietz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clark v. GEO Correctional Center
as 3:2017cv08238
Plaintiff:
Thomas Clark
Defendant:
GEO Correctional Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Walker v. GEO Correctional and Detention
as 1:2017cv02442
Petitioner:
Steve Kedrick Walker
Respondent:
GEO Correctional and Detention
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Walker v. GEO Correctional and Detention
as 4:2017cv00686
Plaintiff:
Steve Kedrick Walker
Defendant:
GEO Correctional and Detention
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
