Cases 1 - 10 of 332
Smith-Daye v. City of Poughkeepsie et al
as 1:2024cv03555
Plaintiff:
David P. Smith-Daye
Defendant:
City of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County Jail and City of Poughkeepsie Police
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Creppel v. Cashio
as 24-30191
Plaintiff:
Jean Paul Creppel
Defendant:
J. R. Cashio, Captain, A-EMT #521, P. Smith, Sergeant, NREM-P #586 and Cynthia Park, Nurse Practitioner
Muhammad v. Smith et al
as 2:2023cv02257
Petitioner:
Robert Muhammad and Siraj Ibrihim
Respondent:
Scott P Smith, United States Marshals Service, Chaplin Hawkins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Creppel v. Cashio et al
as 3:2023cv00290
Plaintiff:
Jean Paul Creppel
Defendant:
J.P. Cashio, P. Smith and Cynthiya Park
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SMITH v. WARDEN
as 1:2022cv01498
Plaintiff:
STEPHEN P. SMITH
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Warden
as 3:2022cv00577
Petitioner:
Stephan P Smith
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cortez-Gomez v. Chicago Strike Force Group 7 et al
as 1:2022cv02803
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Cortez-Gomez
Defendant:
Chicago Strike Force Group 7, Thomas E Spratte, David A Lopez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rivera v. Anderson et al
as 7:2022cv00182
Defendant:
M. D. Sturgill, David Anderson, Harold W. Clarke and others
Plaintiff:
Denis A. Rivera
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ROBICHAW v. MCGEE et al
as 2:2022cv00388
Plaintiff:
RENALDO M. ROBICHAW
Defendant:
SEAN P. MCGEE, MARK S. MURRAY, GARY CHESNEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cole v. Staley et al
as 1:2022cv01009
Plaintiff:
Brandon Cole
Defendant:
B Staley, P Smith and Leonta Jackson
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.
