Cases 1 - 10 of 48
Francis v. Mullens et al
as 7:2024cv00387
Plaintiff:
Cecil D. Francis
Defendant:
Doctor Mullens, Medical Staff Jane Doe or John Doe, Jane Doe or John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cecil v. Novak
as 7:2024cv00235
Plaintiff:
James Lee Cecil, Jr.
Defendant:
Wellpath Health Services and Dr. Novak
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Francis v. Government of the Virgin Islands et al
as 7:2024cv00119
Plaintiff:
Cecil Francis
Defendant:
Government of the Virgin Islands, B. Davis, Blevins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cecil v. Hamrick et al
as 7:2023cv00507
Plaintiff:
James Lee Cecil, Jr.
Defendant:
Sergeant D.W. Hamrick, Caroline Bodin and Trooper J.A. Turner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shifflett v. Chestnut
as 7:2023cv00438
Plaintiff:
Cecil Shifflett
Defendant:
Middle River Regional Jail and Regina Chestnut
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cecil v. Keller et al
as 7:2023cv00310
Plaintiff:
James Lee Cecil, Jr.
Defendant:
Major Keller, Officer L. Helmick, Mrs. D. Cockerman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cecil v. Hamrick et al
as 7:2023cv00235
Plaintiff:
James Lee Cecil, Jr.
Defendant:
Sergeant D.W. Hamrick, Officer K-9 Handler Doe #1 and Magistrate Crysta Cultice
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lewis v. Stolle et al
as 1:2022cv01412
Plaintiff:
Cecil R. Lewis
Defendant:
Ken Stolle, Thompson and Holk
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Truman v. Shrader et al
as 7:2022cv00570
Plaintiff:
Cecil Guy Truman
Defendant:
Lt. M. Shrader, Sgt. C. Russo, Dr. Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Truman v. Unknown
as 1:2021cv01156
Petitioner:
Cecil Guy Truman
Respondent:
Unknown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
