Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Davis v. Officer John Doe 1 et al
as 3:2024cv00682
Plaintiff:
Aaron Davis
Defendant:
Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer Jane Doe 1 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ayers v. Buford et al
as 2:2023cv02772
Plaintiff:
Keshawn Ayers
Defendant:
Sgt. Buford, Officer Avalos, Lt. Brown and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hindman v. Doe et al
as 2:2022cv02466
Plaintiff:
Jimmy Hindman
Respondent:
Officer John Doe, Angla Owens, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ogle v. Pittman et al
as 3:2014cv00456
Plaintiff:
Michael A Ogle
Defendant:
Chuck Pittman, Sheriff Barrons, Chief French and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ogle v. Pittman et al
as 3:2014cv00451
Plaintiff:
Michael A Ogle
Defendant:
Chuck Pittman, Sheriff Barrons, Chief French and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ogle v. Barrons et al
as 3:2014cv00454
Plaintiff:
Michael A Ogle
Defendant:
Sheriff Barrons, House Holder, Officer Dudlly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ogle v. Pittman et al
as 2:2014cv00325
Plaintiff:
Michael A Ogle
Defendant:
Marcus Ball, Lt Lowe, Anthony Tester and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ogle v. Pittman et al
as 3:2014cv00455
Plaintiff:
Michael A Ogle
Defendant:
Marcus Ball, Lt Lowe, Anthony Tester and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ogle v. Barrons et al
as 3:2014cv00457
Defendant:
Sheriff Barrons, Chief French, Captain Adams and others
Plaintiff:
Michael A Ogle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Keller v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, Memphis Police Department's Organized Crime Unit et al
as 2:2013cv02166
Plaintiff:
Curtis Keller
Defendant:
City of Memphis, Tennessee, Memphis Police Department's Organized Crime Unit, Officer John Doe #1, Officer John Doe #2 and others
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.
