Cases 31 - 40 of 225
Bobby Arnett v. Mike Lewis, et al
as 22-5739
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BOBBY EUGENE ARNETT
Defendant / Appellee:
MIKE LEWIS, SERGEANT BRANDON LAMPTON, CLINTON LINDER and others
(PC) Snowden v. Scott et al
as 2:2022cv01444
Plaintiff:
Curtis Snowden, III
Defendant:
A Scott, Jones, Yang and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dennis Smith, Sr. v. Calvin Arnett, et al
as 22-2713
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Dennis James Smith, Sr.
Defendant / Appellee:
Calvin Arnett, Et al., Dexter Payne, Head Director, Vickey Haycox, Head Director and others
Arnett v. Browning et al
as 4:2022cv00078
Plaintiff:
Bobby Eugene Arnett
Defendant:
Ashley Browning and Clinton Linder
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Arnett, et al
as 2:2022cv00081
Plaintiff:
Dennis James Smith, Sr
Defendant:
Calvin Arnett, Dexter Payne, Vickey Haycox and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Arnett, et al
as 5:2022cv05092
Plaintiff:
Dennis James Smith, Sr.
Defendant:
Calvin Arnett, et al
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
May v. Does
as 4:2022cv00460
Plaintiff:
Arnett May
Defendant:
Does
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Arnett Thomas v. Tucson Medical Center, et al
as 22-15679
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ARNETT THOMAS
Defendant / Appellee:
TUCSON MEDICAL CENTER, CODAC BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, OFFICE OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE LICENSURE and others
Brinegar v. London, Kentucky et al
as 6:2022cv00064
Plaintiff:
Cody M. Brinegar
Defendant:
London, Kentucky, Laurel County, Kentucky, John Doe #1 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomas v. Tucson Medical Center et al
as 4:2022cv00143
Plaintiff:
Arnett Thomas
Defendant:
Tucson Medical Center, CODAC Behavioral Health Services, Office of Behavioral Health Care Licensure and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
