Cases 31 - 40 of 450
Ivy v. Crawford County Jail et al
as 3:2023cv00144
Plaintiff:
Marcus Edward Ivy
Defendant:
Crawford County Jail, Jeff Howell, Wayne Bullington and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WEBB v. BROWN
as 1:2023cv00312
Plaintiff:
SEAN EDWARD THOMAS WEBB
Defendant:
MELISSA BROWN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ALATORRE, LEHMAN, PARTLOW v. HOLCOMB et al
as 1:2023cv00282
Plaintiff:
SPIROS ALATORRE, CHARLES LEHMAN and EDWARD PARTLOW
Defendant:
ERIC J. HOLCOMB, ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., DAUSS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pratcher v. Sheriff
as 3:2023cv00067
Petitioner:
Deuntay Edward Pratcher and Deuntay E Pratcher
Respondent:
Sheriff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
EDWARDS v. HOLCOMB et al
as 1:2022cv02377
Plaintiff:
ADRIAN EDWARDS
Defendant:
ERIC J. HOLCOMB, ROBERT E. CARTER JR., DAUSS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
EDWARDS v. HOLCOMB et al
as 1:2022cv02357
Plaintiff:
ADRIAN EDWARDS
Defendant:
ERIC J. HOLCOMB, ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., DAUSS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PURNELL v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2022cv02355
Petitioner:
EDWARD PURNELL
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 st Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SWEENEY v. WARDEN
as 3:2022cv00188
Petitioner:
CHARLES EDWARD SWEENEY, JR.
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clinton v. Edward Jones and Co, LP
as 3:2022cv00972
Plaintiff:
Kevin Clinton
Defendant:
Edward Jones and Co, LP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SWEENEY v. MITCHELL
as 3:2022cv00178
Petitioner:
CHARLES EDWARD SWEENEY, JR.
Respondent:
DANNY MITCHELL
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.
