Cases 41 - 50 of 313
BOYCE V CORSANICO ET AL
as 2:2023cv00698
Plaintiff:
IN RE: JAY BOYCE and JAY ROMAIN BOYCE
Defendant:
DETECTIVE THOMAS CORSANICO and MOUNT LAUREL POLICE DEPARTMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
In re: Anthony Apanovitch
as 23-3149
Petitioner:
In re: ANTHONY C. APANOVITCH
Respondent:
TIM SHOOP, Warden
Yusuf Hotep-El v. State of Indiana, et al
as 23-1259
Plaintiff / Appellant:
YUSUF HOTEP-EL, also known as JOSEPH DUWAYNE TUNSTILL
Defendant / Appellee:
STATE OF INDIANA, SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY RE-ENTRY CENTER, DUSHAN ZATECKY, Superintendent, Putnamville Correctional Facility and others
Thomas Stewart, Jr. v. Arizona, State of, et al
as 23-15173
Plaintiff / Appellant:
THOMAS STEWART, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
ARIZONA, STATE OF, MARICOPA, COUNTY OF, D SHELL RYAN, #09838 and others
Johnson v. Orlando Regional Re-Entry Manager et al
as 8:2023cv00224
Petitioner:
Kurtis Johnson
Respondent:
Orlando Regional Re-Entry Manager, Merrick B. Garland and United States Marshals
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
GRIFFITH v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 2:2023cv00041
Plaintiff:
FERNANDO C. GRIFFITH
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, HEATHER MILLS, BRENDA HINTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
IN RE: TORRES
as 2:2023cv00402
Petitioner:
IN RE: JOEL TORRES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
IN RE: VINCENT DAVIS
as 2:2022cv05163
Petitioner:
IN RE: VINCENT DAVIS and VINCENT DAVIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
IN RE: WHEELER
as 2:2022cv04973
Plaintiff:
IN RE TODD WHEELER and TODD WHEELER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
IN RE: DONNELLY
as 2:2022cv04928
Plaintiff:
IN RE: PATRICK DONNELLY
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.
