Cases 1 - 10 of 54
B-3-88-A, et al. v. Sileoni 98822
as 1:2023cv00314
Plaintiff:
William B-3-88-A, Linzy, Thompson and others
Defendant:
Sileoni 98822
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
UNSER v. WEDDING et al
as 3:2023cv00055
Plaintiff:
ANDREW LEE UNSER
Defendant:
DAVID WEDDING, WOODS, BUTLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HARRELL v. WEDDING et al
as 3:2022cv00182
Plaintiff:
QUINYATTE J. HARRELL
Defendant:
DAVID WEDDING, WOODS, ZUBAR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
THOMAS v. VANDERBURGH COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT. et al
as 1:2022cv02122
Plaintiff:
DEMARCO THOMAS
Defendant:
VANDERBUGH COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, VANDERBUGH COUTY SHERIFFS DEPT and DAVE WEDDING
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MAFFETT v. WEDDING et al
as 3:2022cv00143
Plaintiff:
WILLIE GENE MAFFETT
Defendant:
DAVE WEDDING, RANDY STOKES, NURSING STAFF and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Taylor v. Kamal et al
as 7:2022cv00283
Plaintiff:
Christian Taylor
Defendant:
Sinan Kamal, B. Wedding and James
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HARRELL v. WEDDING et al
as 2:2022cv00184
Plaintiff:
QUINYATTE J. HARRELL
Defendant:
DAVID WEDDING, WOODS, ZUBAR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
THOMPSON v. WEDDING et al
as 3:2021cv00151
Plaintiff:
CAMERSON J. THOMPSON and CAMERON J. THOMPSON
Defendant:
DAVE WEDDING, COWLING, CULVER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BARNES v. WEDDING et al
as 3:2021cv00107
Plaintiff:
RICHARD BARNES
Defendant:
DAVE WEDDING, OGLESBY, JANE DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MULLINS v. WEDDING et al
as 3:2021cv00084
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, EVANSVILLE-VANDERBURGH CO. BUILDING AUTHORITY and DAVID WEDDING
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS W. MULLINS
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.
