Cases 1 - 10 of 178
Shouse v. Madsen et al
as 7:2024cv00519
Defendant:
Santos, Madsen, Hamm and others
Plaintiff:
Jacob Alan Shouse
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shouse v. Clarke et al
as 7:2024cv00521
Defendant:
Taylor, Rippey, Davis and others
Plaintiff:
Jacob Alan Shouse
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Buffalo County et al
as 8:2024cv00243
Defendant:
Buffalo County, Ryan Carson, Shawn Eatherton and others
Plaintiff:
Kirk D. Robinson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Miller et al
as 8:2024cv00242
Defendant:
Olimi, Gissler, Tim Miller and others
Plaintiff:
Kirk D. Robinson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Boyd et al
as 8:2024cv00189
Defendant:
CM Messner, CM Delgado, Taggart Boyd and others
Plaintiff:
Kirk D. Robinson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Lamb et al
as 3:2024cv00507
Defendant:
Warden Lamb, Sgt. K. Tucker, Assistant Warden Norman and others
Plaintiff:
Christopher D. Robinson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Neel et al
as 3:2024cv00477
Plaintiff:
Shaquon RaShawn Johnson
Defendant:
C. Neel, C. Burnett, Nunes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chavis v. Stump et al
as 7:2024cv00256
Plaintiff:
Jason Chavis and Jaeon Chavis
Defendant:
K-9 Officer Stump, J.A. Murray, Alfed Yates and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Charles Robinson v. Latoya Hughes, et al
as 24-1519
Plaintiff:
CHARLES MOHAMED ROBINSON, also known as Charles D. Robinson
Defendant:
LATOYA HUGHES, DISTRICT ONE PAROLE RE-ENTRY GROUP DEPUTY CHIEF, DISTRICT ONE PAROLE RE-ENTRY GROUP SUPERVISOR and others
Robinson v. Bean
as 2:2024cv00436
Plaintiff:
Keith D. Robinson
Defendant:
Jeremy Bean
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
