Cases 61 - 70 of 696
Newell v. Tate et al
as 5:2022cv00277
Plaintiff:
Leroy Lee Newell, Jr.
Defendant:
DiDymus Tate, Prime Care Health Service, Lt. Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Windham v. Pike et al
as 2:2022cv02007
Plaintiff:
Charles Windham
Defendant:
Michael Pike, Matthew Swett, Donald Mathews and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Booth v. Sampson
as 1:2022cv04350
Plaintiff:
Delroy T. Booth
Defendant:
Warden Sampson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Windham v. Covello et al
as 2:2022cv01931
Plaintiff:
Charles Windham
Defendant:
Patrick Covello, Bryan Holmes, Cook and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Booth v. State of New York et al
as 9:2022cv01010
Plaintiff:
Patrick M. Booth
Defendant:
State of New York, A. Poalano and Letisha James
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00565
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gorbey v. United States et al
as 3:2022cv50330
Plaintiff:
Michael Gorbey
Defendant:
United States, Dols, Barmes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gorbey v. United States et al
as 4:2022cv04134
Plaintiff:
Michael Gorbey
Defendant:
United States, . Dols, . Barmes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lanham v. Alexander et al
as 1:2022cv01184
Plaintiff:
Perry Brent Lanham
Defendant:
Johnny Alexander, Brent Booth, Terry Lee Dicus, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kimble v. Connick et al
as 2:2022cv03093
Plaintiff:
Raymond Harold Kimble, III
Defendant:
Paul D. Connick, Jr., Jefferson Parish, Twenty Fourth Judicial District Attorneys Office and others
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.
