Cases 71 - 80 of 175
Jones v. State of North Dakota et al
as 3:2017cv00041
Plaintiff:
Anthony Michael Jones
Defendant:
State of North Dakota, R. Benson, Warden Pringle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Michael Jones v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI, et al
as 17-1334
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL JONES
Defendant - Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT MAHANOY SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
JONES v. ALSIP et al
as 1:2017cv00257
Defendant:
DUANE ALSIP, DANKIN, DENNIS DAVIS and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID MICHAEL JONES
Miscellaneou:
PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Joseph Jones v. Richard Graham, Jr.
as 17-6082
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOSEPH MICHAEL JONES
Respondent - Appellee:
RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR. and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Jones v. Lisiak et al
as 3:2017cv00046
Plaintiff:
Michael Jones
Defendant:
John Lisiak , Correct Care Solutions, LLC , Karen Holly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES v. ZETECKY, ET AL
as 1:2016cv03347
Plaintiff:
DAVID MICHAEL JONES
Defendant:
BRUCE LEMMON, LT. K. SAMONE, VINCENT STANLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Graham et al
as 1:2016cv03965
Petitioner:
Joseph Michael Jones
Respondent:
Richard J. Graham, Jr. and The Attorney General Of The State Of Maryland
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jones v. John Doe Officer of the City of Rogers, Arkansas et al
as 5:2016cv05299
Plaintiff:
Dustin Michael Jones
Defendant:
John Doe Officer of the City of Rogers, Arkansas and Benton County Sheriff's Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2016cv06835
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JONES, JR.
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Warden
as 1:2016cv02893
Defendant:
Warden
Plaintiff:
Michael Jones
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.
