Prisoner Petitions Cases
KANE v. HANCOCK COUNTY, INDIANA et al
as 1:2018cv01615
Defendant: JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, HANCOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and others
Plaintiff: CHRISTIAN MICHAEL KANE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kane v. State of California et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2017cv00150
Plaintiff: Daniel Michael Kane
Defendant: People of the State of Calfornia, State of California, City of Sacramento and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cornell v. Anderson et al
as 4:2016cv00297
Plaintiff: Robert Alan Cornell
Defendant: Karen Anderson, Jana Hacker, Harbans Deol and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KANE v. ROZUM et al
as 2:2014cv01797
Petitioner: MICHAEL KANE
Respondent: GERALD ROZUM, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Michael Kane v. R E Barnes
as 2:2013cv03521
Simpson v. Union County Sheriff's Office et al
as 3:2010cv00626
Plaintiff: David Ezell Simpson
Defendant: Union County Sheriff's Office, FNU Hedlund, FNU Michael and others
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
DePonceau v. United States of America
as 10-3539
Defendant: K. Hollenbeck, Elmira Correctional Facility, Claire White, Assistant District Attorney, John R. Schwartz, Rochester City Court Judge and others
Appellee: Edward Arenzer, Eliot L. Spitzer, David T. Moore, Rochester Police Chief and others
Appellant: John J. Connell, Monroe County Judge
Plaintiff: Victor Altheus DePonceau
Kane v. Sabol
as 4:2007cv40216
Petitioner: Michael Kane
Respondent: Carolyn Sabol
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Kane v. United States of America et al
as 4:2007cv40027
Plaintiff: Michael Kane
Defendant: United States of America, FMC, Devens, Fazal Bhatti and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

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.


Why Is My Information Online?