Cases 51 - 60 of 1,794
PRYOR v. DOOLY STATE PRISON et al
as 5:2023cv00475
Plaintiff:
ERIK E PRYOR
Defendant:
DOOLY STATE PRISON, ARMSTRONG and ALTMA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Armstrong v. Phillips et al
as 3:2023cv01251
Plaintiff:
Timothy Lee Armstrong
Defendant:
Amber L. Phillips and John Doe #1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pryor v. Dooly State Prison et al
as 4:2023cv00330
Plaintiff:
Erik E. Pryor
Defendant:
Dooly State Prison, Ms. Armstrong and Ms. Altma
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Armstrong #314416 v. Ramos et al
as 2:2023cv02401
Plaintiff:
Kpou Armstrong
Defendant:
Alfred Ramos, Fransisco Hernandez and Mia Baldenegro
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dingle v. Armstrong et al
as 2:2023cv05841
Plaintiff:
Eugene C. Dingle
Defendant:
Leslie Armstrong and Tim Mose
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROBERTS v. WEBB et al
as 3:2023cv24696
Plaintiff:
JAVONEY DEVON ROBERTS
Defendant:
JAMES R WEBB, C SIMMONS and T ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Angel Rios-Rosa v. Loraine Armstrong
as 23-3385
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Angel David Rios-Rosa
Defendant / Appellee:
Loraine Armstrong
Pinckney v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
as 6:2023cv05344
Plaintiff:
Lawrence Pinckney
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Julie Armstrong, Judge Kristi Harrington and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Rubinstein et al v. United States of America
as 2:2023cv12685
Petitioner:
Jacob Rubinstein, Jeffrey Armstrong, Thomas Bauer and others
Respondent:
United States of America
Dingle v. Sterling et al
as 2:2023cv05333
Plaintiff:
Eugene C Dingle
Defendant:
Candace Loreal Sterling, Tim Mose, Daniel Scoggins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
