Cases 1 - 10 of 60
US v. Arthur Jones
as 24-6462
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ARTHUR F. JONES, a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a June, a/k/a Junior
Jones v. Richmond County Sheriff Department et al
as 1:2023cv00160
Plaintiff:
Christopher F. Jones
Defendant:
Richmond County Sheriff Department and Wellpath
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv05393
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jenkins v. Jones et al
as 1:2022cv02351
Plaintiff:
William J. Jenkins
Defendant:
Sarah F. Jones, Andrea Lynn Chasteen, James J. Stramaglia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jenkins v. Jones et al
as 1:2022cv02133
Plaintiff:
William J. Jenkins
Defendant:
Sarah F. Jones, BMRCC Property Staff, Warden #1 of BMRCC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bonilla v. Gutierrez et al
as 4:2020cv07715
Defendant:
Brian K. Taylor, Donna L. Slashyn, J. Gales and others
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kikongo Hakim-Akbar Jones v. CA Mens Colony et al
as 2:2020cv08704
Plaintiff:
Kikongo Hakim-Akbar Jones and F. Jones
Defendant:
Brian A. Dodd, CA Secretary of Corrections and CA Mens Colony
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bonilla v. Clay
as 4:2020cv04304
Defendant:
Michael E. Delllastrillo, Toni Cantil-Sakauye, Andrew G. Schopler and others
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kikongo Hakim-Akbar Jones v. Gavin Newsom et al
as 4:2020cv01422
Petitioner:
Kikongo Hakim-Akbar Jones, F. Jones and Fredrick Jones
Respondent:
Mayor Gavin Newsom and Secretary of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Kikongo Hakim-Akbar Jones v. Gavin Newsom et al
as 2:2020cv01660
Petitioner:
Kikongo Hakim-Akbar Jones and F. Jones
Respondent:
Gavin Newsom and Secretary of Corrections
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.
