Cases 31 - 40 of 60
Fields et al v. Nevels et al
as 1:2019cv00521
Plaintiff:
Ronnie Fields, Eric Jordan, Kyle Johnson and others
Defendant:
Corporal Sugar, Priscella, B Stitnicky and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Riley v Nevels et al
as 2:2019cv00352
Defendant:
Todd Fleece, Corporal Sugar and Reggie Nevels
Plaintiff:
Joe Riley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Stone et al v. Nevels et al
as 1:2019cv00126
Plaintiff:
Kyle Smith, Joe Riley, Greg Robinson and others
Defendant:
CLU Screening, Ken Faulk, Reggie Nevels and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BERRY v. KNIGHT et al
as 1:2018cv02644
Defendant:
RILEY GROOVER, WEXFORD HEALTH CARE, BARNS DOE and others
Plaintiff:
EARLIE B.A. BERRY, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RILEY v. EWING et al
as 2:2018cv00226
Defendant:
EDWARDS and MILLER
Sheriff:
GREG EWING
Plaintiff:
DANTE MARCUS RILEY
RN:
SUSAN STREETER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SHROCK v. RILEY et al
as 1:2018cv00643
Defendant:
M. CAYLOR, MASON, PHILLIPS and others
Miscellaneou:
PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only)
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW ALAN SHROCK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RILEY v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2018cv00536
Defendant:
KEITH BUTTS, ADAM DEMING, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION (PAROLE) and others
Plaintiff:
CLINTON RILEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RILEY v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 1:2017cv04616
Respondent:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and INDIANA PAROLE DIST. #3
Petitioner:
CLINTON RILEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RILEY v. BUTTS
as 1:2017cv01867
Respondent:
KEITH BUTTS
Petitioner:
CLINTON RILEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RILEY et al v. BUTTS et al
as 1:2016cv03243
Defendant:
ROBERT BUGHER, KEITH BUTTS, ADAM DEMING and others
Plaintiff:
CLINTON RILEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
