Cases 71 - 80 of 298
Thomas v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC et al
as 2:2021cv02834
Plaintiff:
Jazmar Thomas
Defendant:
CORRECTION OFFICER, JOHN DOE 1, also known to Plaintiff as CORRECTION OFFICER, WAKU, GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, CORRECTION OFFICER, JOHN DOE 2, also known to Plaintiff as CORRECTION OFFICER, NIBLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cummings v. Schickvam et al
as 1:2021cv01006
Defendant:
D. Drum, Dr. Chuma, Powers and others
Plaintiff:
William Brandon Cummings
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JAMES v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2021cv00786
Defendant:
JOHN DOE #5, LOIS ALLEN, MARK CAPPOZZA and others
Plaintiff:
PARIS L. JAMES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
CARPENTER v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC et al
as 2:2021cv02830
Defendant:
CORRECTION OFFICER, JOHN DOE 1, GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, CORRECTION OFFICER, JOHN DOE 2 and others
Plaintiff:
KEVIN CARPENTER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
DELGADO v. RADDAD et al
as 2:2021cv02534
Defendant:
JOHN DOE #1, BLANCHE CARNEY, C/O RADDAD and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DELGADO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Briggs v. SMU Counselor et al
as 3:2021cv00911
Defendant:
John Doe 2, John Doe I and SMU Counselor
Plaintiff:
Theodore Briggs
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
JONES v. COPELIC et al
as 3:2021cv00080
Plaintiff:
ROBERT JONES and ROBERT MILLER
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL, C/O BENDICK, C/O MCGOUGH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
MITCHELL v. JONES et al
as 1:2021cv00131
Plaintiff:
DAMILE Q. MITCHELL
Defendant:
EARL JONES, JOHN DOE #1, CAMBPELL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
MAXWELL v. SOBER et al
as 2:2021cv01939
Defendant:
JAMIE SOBER, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 1 and others
Plaintiff:
DANA MAXWELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hitner v. Reese et al
as 1:2021cv00430
Defendant:
John Doe (1), Corrections Lt. Newberry, John Doe (3) and others
Plaintiff:
Clinton F Hitner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
