Cases 1 - 10 of 29
BOWLING v. WARDEN
as 3:2023cv00072
Petitioner:
MICHAEL W. BOWLING
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BOWLES v. FAYETTE COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2023cv00120
Plaintiff:
WILSON JAMES E. BOWLES
Defendant:
FAYETTE COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JOHNSTON v. DOLLERIS et al
as 4:2022cv00022
Plaintiff:
GERALD JOHNSTON
Defendant:
TROY DOLLERIS, ROGER NEWLON, BRENT MILLER and others
Not Classified By Court:
TODD VARE and MITCHELL L. OSTERDAY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GAINES v. MARION COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD et al
as 1:2021cv03029
Plaintiff:
DEANGELO GAINES
Defendant:
MARION COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD, DUVALL RESIDENTIAL CENTER, SHANNON BOWLING and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HUNT v. JEFFRIES et al
as 1:2021cv02633
Plaintiff:
WYATT W. HUNT
Defendant:
KEVIN L. JEFFRIES, TYLER BOWLING, KERRY RANDLES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWLES v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE INC. et al
as 1:2020cv03204
Defendant:
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE INC., JANE DOE, H. WINNINGHAM and others
Plaintiff:
RANDALL BOWLES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWLES v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 1:2020cv02669
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEVEN CARTER and H. WINNINGHAM
Plaintiff:
RANDALL BOWLES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWLING v. BROWN et al
as 2:2020cv00254
Defendant:
RICHARD BROWN, K. HOBSON, WEXFORD and others
Plaintiff:
STEVEN BRADLEY BOWLING
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWLING v. GRIFFITH et al
as 2:2020cv00240
Defendant:
F. LITTLEJOHN, BEDWELL, MRS. T. DAVIS and others
Plaintiff:
STEVEN BRADLEY BOWLING
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWLING v. WEXFORD
as 1:2019cv04492
Defendant:
WEXFORD
Plaintiff:
DAMON TRAVIS BOWLING
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.
