Cases 91 - 100 of 1,014
Lummus #102598 v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv02079
Plaintiff:
David Wayne Lummus
Defendant:
David Shinn, S Oplinger, Brea Lawson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mecham #157752 v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv02077
Plaintiff:
Cade J Mecham
Defendant:
David Shinn, Larry Gann, Stacey Fife and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Francis #265157 v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv02071
Plaintiff:
James Francis and James EK Francis
Defendant:
David Shinn, Centurion of Arizona LLC, Siji Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hess #76208 v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv02060
Plaintiff:
James Lee Hess
Defendant:
David Shinn, Centurion of Arizona, Naph Care and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parks v. Reyes
as 4:2022cv00544
Plaintiff:
Edward F Parks
Defendant:
Unknown Reyes, David Shinn, Mark Brnovich and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Peralta #209338 v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv02059
Plaintiff:
Martin Alberto Peralta
Defendant:
David Shinn, Unknown Valles and Unknown Party
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bennetti #085442 v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv02063
Plaintiff:
Dino Bennetti
Defendant:
David Shinn, Party Unknown, Unknown Parties and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tolano v. Shinn
as 2:2022cv02050
Petitioner:
Juan M Tolano
Respondent:
David Shinn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jackson v. Shinn et al
as 3:2022cv08216
Petitioner:
Randolph A Jackson, Jr.
Respondent:
David Shinn and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Trevino #215555 v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv02030
Plaintiff:
Dino Trevino
Defendant:
David Shinn and Unknown Party
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.
