Cases 1 - 10 of 23
SHAW v. METRO SOUTH STATE POLICE et al
as 1:2023cv01863
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER M. SHAW
Defendant:
METRO SOUTH STATE POLICE, JOHN DOE OFFICERS 1-16, TROOPER DOUGLAS ZEE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
EL et al v. KELSEY et al
as 1:2023cv01458
Plaintiff:
NOBLE CHRISTO EL, TRE N VISCO, LEONARD LUDWIGSEN, JR and others
Defendant:
DAVID KELSEY (in his individual and official capacity) doing business as DAVID KELSEY, WARDEN, K. BROWN, "JOHN" CHARLETON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SHAW v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2021cv10166
Defendant:
WARDEN GUY CIRILLO, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, U.S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and others
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY SHAW
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHAW v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2019cv16702
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
SHAWN D. SHAW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
SHAW v. TAYLOR et al
as 1:2018cv14144
Petitioner:
CURTIS SHAW
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY and WARDEN KAREN TAYLOR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
LESLIE v. GREEN
as 2:2017cv00239
Petitioner:
SHAW GARRY LESLIE
Respondent:
CHARLES GREEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SHAW v. CITY OF CAMDEN N.J et al
as 1:2016cv05746
Plaintiff:
FRANK K. SHAW
Defendant:
CITY OF CAMDEN N.J and CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTION FACILITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHAW v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2016cv05720
Plaintiff:
MARK ERIC SHAW
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PIERCE v. BARNES et al
as 1:2016cv00400
Plaintiff:
TERRELL PIERCE
Defendant:
E BARNES, MARRINER, SHAW and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CONLEY v. DISTEFANO et al
as 3:2015cv01512
Plaintiff:
KEVIN CONLEY
Defendant:
J. DISTEFANO, SALVATORE D'AMICO, ANTONIO CAMPOS and others
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.
