Cases 91 - 100 of 142
MAHMOUD v. CITY OF LEWISTON et al
as 2:2014cv00255
Plaintiff:
ALI M MAHMOUD
Defendant:
CITY OF LEWISTON , MICHAEL BUSSIERE , JOHN DOE 1 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PUTNAM v. REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT 50 et al
as 1:2014cv00154
Plaintiff:
MURRAY W PUTNAM
Defendant:
REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT 50, JOHN DOE and LARRY MALONE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ASSELIN v. JOHN DOES 1-3 et al
as 2:2013cv00320
Plaintiff:
SHAWN ASSELIN
Defendant:
JOHN DOES 1-3, JEFF CHUTE and JOHN LEBEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WALKER v. NICHOLS et al
as 1:2013cv00259
Plaintiff:
SANDRA WALKER
Defendant:
RALPH NICHOLS, PATRICIA BARNHART, SCOTT BURNHEIMER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STILE v. SOMERSET COUNTY et al
as 1:2013cv00248
Plaintiff:
JAMES STILE
Defendant:
SOMERSET COUNTY, SOMERSET COUNTY SHERIFF, DAVID ALLEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ROBERTS v. DOES 1 - 4 et al
as 2:2013cv00240
Plaintiff:
KEVIN ROBERTS
Defendant:
JOHN DOES 1 - 4, JANE DOE, REGGIE LITTLEFIELD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
COTE et al v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY et al
as 2:2013cv00226
Plaintiff:
BRIAN COTE
Defendant:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY JAIL, KEVIN JOYCE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ASSELIN v. CHICK et al
as 2:2013cv00222
Plaintiff:
SHAWN ASSELIN
Defendant:
MATHEW CHICK, JOHN DOES, TRAVYS FECTEAU and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GLIDDEN v. NOLL et al
as 1:2013cv00223
Plaintiff:
HAROLD GLIDDEN
Defendant:
BRADFORD NOLL, CLINTON and JOHN DOE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RACKLIFF v. US PRISONER TRANSPORT CORP et al
as 1:2013cv00135
Plaintiff:
SCOTT RACKLIFF
Defendant:
US PRISONER TRANSPORT CORP, JANE DOE and JOHN DOE
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.
