Cases 41 - 50 of 827
Joel Munt v. Jesse Pugh
as 23-3087
Petitioner / Appellant:
Joel Marvin Munt
Respondent / Appellee:
Jesse Pugh
Canada v. State of Minnesota et al
as 0:2023cv02704
Plaintiff:
Shawn Canada
Defendant:
State of Minnesota, Paul Schnell, Andrew Karlsen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Reaves v. Pugh et al
as 7:2023cv00549
Plaintiff:
Jermaine D. Reaves
Defendant:
Chad Pugh, Michael Pozeg, The Commonwealth of Virginia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mondor v. Schnell et al
as 0:2023cv02511
Plaintiff:
David Mondor
Defendant:
Paul Schnell, Michelle Smith, Guy Bosch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Reaves v. Pugh et al
as 2:2023cv00344
Plaintiff:
Jermaine D. Reaves
Defendant:
Chad Pugh, Michael Pozeg, The Commonwealth of Virginia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nelson v. Schnell et al
as 0:2023cv02029
Plaintiff:
Chad Nicholas Nelson
Defendant:
Paul Schnell, Jesse Pugh, Josh Barnes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Delaney v. Pugh
as 0:2023cv01942
Petitioner:
Clinton Delaney
Respondent:
Jesse Pugh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Khammesherma Smith v. A. Nathaniel
as 23-6616
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KHAMMESHERMA SMITH
Defendant / Appellee:
A. NATHANIEL, Correctional Officer, OFFICER PUGH, Correctional Officer and OFFICER ALSTON, Correctional Officer
Ramsey v. Pugh
as 0:2023cv01854
Plaintiff:
Pierre Ramsey
Defendant:
Jesse Pugh
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Khammesherma Smith v. Officer Dalton
as 23-6590
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KHAMMESHERMA SMITH
Defendant / Appellee:
OFFICER DALTON, individual and official capacity, OFFICER PUGH, individual and official capacity, OFFICER SWEAT, individual and official capacity and others
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.
