Cases 1 - 10 of 130
Liscomb v. Randel et al
as 4:2024cv00296
Plaintiff:
Michael Allen Liscomb
Defendant:
Kenyen Randel, Antonio D Johnson, Jr, Tod Ball and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mickes v. State of Montana et al
as 6:2023cv00089
Plaintiff:
Tod Mickes
Defendant:
State of Montana, Greg Gianforte and Austin Knudsen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Foster et al
as 1:2023cv01414
Plaintiff:
Edgar Jones, Jr
Defendant:
Levi Foster, Tod Punke, . Gate and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brown v. Schnurr, et al
as 22-3183
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER DAVID BROWN
Defendant / Appellee:
DANIEL SCHNURR, JEFFREY NEAL PETTIJOHN, TOD E. SWENSON and others
Milner v. Urban
as 1:2022cv04919
Plaintiff:
Anthony Milner
Defendant:
Tod Michael Urban
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC)Kendrix v. Sacramento Main Jail et al
as 2:2022cv01502
Plaintiff:
Marcus Anthony Kendrix
Defendant:
Sacramento Main Jail, Tod Gill and Acajella
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sparks v. States Attorney, et al
as 3:2022cv00846
Petitioner:
Tod Matthew Sparks, II
Respondent:
Office of States Attorney and Judicial District of Danbury
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sparks II v. Office of States Attorney Judicial District of Danbury, et al
as 3:2022cv01042
Petitioner:
Tod Matthew Sparks II
Respondent:
Office of States Attorney Judicial District of Danbury and Connecticut Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
COMPTON v. L. RICHARDSON PREYER FEDERAL BUILDING et al
as 1:2022cv00204
Plaintiff:
TRAE JAVAR COMPTON
Defendant:
L. RICHARDSON PREYER FEDERAL BUILDING, METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER L.A., DOCTOR T. SMITH 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.
