Cases 21 - 30 of 7,263
Paw v. Neely et al
as 7:2024cv00470
Petitioner:
April Paw
Respondent:
Warden K Neely and C Peters
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Davis #223815 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2024cv00092
Plaintiff:
Ronald Lamont Davis #223815
Defendant:
Michigan Department of Corrections, Grand Prairie Healthcare Services, Danya Russo and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Charles Jordan v. J. Barves, et al
as 24-2030
Plaintiff:
CHARLES JEROME JORDAN
Defendant:
J. BARVES, Lieutenant FCI-Schuylkill, J. PUMPHREY, Lieutenant FCI-Schuylkill, LT. BARDO and others
Garcia v. City of Colorado Springs, et al
as 24-1238
Plaintiff:
MIGUEL ANTONIO GARCIA
Defendant:
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO, COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN DOE, C.S.P.D. Officer and others
Ballard v. County of Rockland et al
as 7:2024cv02944
Plaintiff:
Wayne Ballard
Defendant:
County of Rockland, Thomas E. Walsh, II, Peter Walker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Peters v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice
as 3:2024cv00097
Plaintiff:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant:
Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
VALENTINE v. JPAY INCORPORATED LLC
as 4:2024cv00231
Plaintiff:
PETER VALENTINE
Defendant:
JPAY INCORPORATED LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Simmons v. Wickersham et al
as 1:2024cv11453
Petitioner:
LaTausha Simmons
Respondent:
Anthony Wickersham, Peter Lucido and William Dwyer
Bastas v. State of North Carolina
as 5:2024hc02105
Petitioner:
Andreas Peter Bastas
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BOWERS v. CLARK et al
as 2:2024cv00803
Petitioner:
BRANDON BOWERS
Respondent:
Superintendent Gina Clark and PETER C. ACKER
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.
