Cases 1 - 10 of 463
Quintero #245457 v. NaphCare et al
as 4:2025cv00116
Plaintiff:
Manuel Quintero
Defendant:
NaphCare, Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry and Ryan Thornell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mendoza v. Thornell et al
as 2:2025cv00798
Plaintiff:
Patrick Ryan Mendoza
Defendant:
Ryan Thornell, John Mattos, Robert Hetrick and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brooks v. Thornell et al
as 2:2025cv00756
Petitioner:
Michael Eugene Brooks
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Kris Mayes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bennetti #085442 v. Thornell
as 2:2025cv00743
Plaintiff:
Dino Joseph Bennetti and Paul C Denatale
Defendant:
Ryan Thornell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bennetti #085442 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2025cv00744
Plaintiff:
Dino Bennetti
Defendant:
Ryan Thornell, Unknown Party and Keefe Commissary Company
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tripati v. McLane et al
as 2:2025cv00334
Plaintiff:
Anant Kumar Tripati
Defendant:
James McLane, Bradford McLane, NaphCare and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
White #351380 v. Thornell et al
as 3:2025cv08042
Petitioner:
Timothy White
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Norris v. Thornell
as 3:2025cv08039
Petitioner:
Christopher Michael Norris
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reeves v. Thornell et al
as 2:2025cv00629
Plaintiff:
Stephen Douglas Reeves
Defendant:
Ryan Thornell and Jerry Sheridan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Harris #113830 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2025cv00566
Plaintiff:
Jason Lee Harris
Defendant:
Ryan Thornell, Kris Mayes and Anthony Moreno
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.
