Cases 31 - 40 of 43
Roebuck v. Mathena et al
as 7:2011cv00305
Defendant:
Barker, Harold W. Clarke, Collins and others
Plaintiff:
Mario Roebuck
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Roebuck v. Mathena et al
as 1:2011cv00590
Plaintiff:
Mario Roebuck
Defendant:
Randall C. Mathena, Julius Wilson, Harold W. Clarke and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Roebuck v. Medina et al
as 1:2010cv01422
Petitioner:
Marcellous Ander Roebuck
Respondent:
Angel Medina and John Suthers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hayes v. Roebuck
as 9:2010cv00404
Plaintiff:
Ernest Hayes
Defendant:
J. Roebuck
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Walter et al v. Correctional Medical Sevices Inc. et al
as 5:2010cv00243
Plaintiff:
Dennis A. Walter and Edith Walter
Defendant:
Correctional Medical Sevices Inc., Gary Kempker, Steven Moore and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Wrongful Death
Walter et al v. Correctional Medical Sevices Inc. et al
as 4:2010cv00243
Plaintiff:
Dennis A. Walter and Edith Walter
Defendant:
Correctional Medical Sevices Inc., Gary Kempker, Steven Moore and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Wrongful Death
Atterbury v. Puglises et al
as 0:2008cv61514
Plaintiff:
Jermaine W. Atterbury
Defendant:
Lou Puglises, Matthew Marks, Mike Roebuck and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Ray v. MARTINEZ et al
as 3:2008cv00069
Plaintiff:
Charles W. Ray
Defendant:
RICHARDO MARTINEZ, Richard Engle, SHOOK, ASSISTANT WARDEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Riches et al v. Molski et al
as 8:2008cv00457
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Lee Riches, Alexander Ovechkin and Justine Henin
Defendant:
Jarek Molski and Nigel Roebuck
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Joel LeVine v. Kathleen Roebuck, et al
as 07-3388
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Joel LeVine
Defendant - Appellee:
Kathleen Roebuck, Tonya Youngs and Donald Greim
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.
