Cases 61 - 70 of 127
Meade v. Jackson et al
as 1:2015cv00301
Plaintiff:
Michael Meade
Defendant:
Theodore Jackson, Sutton, Norris and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hayes v. District Attorney et al
as 5:2014cv03244
Plaintiff:
Michael Leon Hayes
Defendant:
Office of 26th J D C District Attorney, Clerk of Court and Public Defenders Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Murdock v. Murray et al
as 5:2014de00109
Plaintiff:
Ajanaku Murdock
Defendant:
D. C. Murray and Crystal Beale
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Blake v. Magistrates et al
as 3:2014cv00824
Plaintiff:
Thomas Blake
Defendant:
U S D C Magistrates, Karen Hayes, Robert James and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Patel v. Cole et al
as 1:2014cv00779
Plaintiff:
Praful Patel
Defendant:
D C Cole, Jeh Johonnson, George H Lund, III and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Kevin James Burbridge v. C D C Officers
as 2:2014cv00458
Plaintiff:
Kevin James Burbridge
Defendant:
C D C Officers
Fritz v. Cole et al
as 1:2013cv02374
Plaintiff:
Clarence Alexander Fritz
Defendant:
D C Cole, Lasalle Detention Center, G E O Group and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Smith v. Avoyelles Parish DC-1 et al
as 1:2013cv02320
Plaintiff:
Samuel Smith
Defendant:
Avoyelles Parish D C 1, Steve Dauzat, Bonnie Walker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lavergne v. Harson et al
as 6:2013cv02120
Plaintiff:
Brandon Scott Lavergne
Defendant:
Mike Harson and Office of 15th J D C District Attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STRUNK et al v. CHESTER COUNTY DETECTIVES DIVISION et al
as 5:2013cv00824
Plaintiff:
RANCE STRUNK, SR., DARLENE STRUNK, CLIFFORD B. REPOTSKI and others
Defendant:
CHESTER COUNTY DETECTIVES DIVISION , CHESTER COUNTY D/C RICHARD, JOSEPH WALTON 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.
