Cases 11 - 20 of 40
McCall v. Division of Corrections (D.O.C.) et al
as 1:2022cv00913
Plaintiff:
Jeremiah Quinn McCall
Defendant:
Division of Corrections (D.O.C.), C.O. Tart, C.O. Logsdon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Mande et al
as 1:2022cv00852
Plaintiff:
Nickolis Dean Williams
Defendant:
Lt. Mande, C.O. Luu, C.O. Noel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Charles v. Tucker et al
as 1:2021cv03204
Plaintiff:
Earl Deangelo Charles
Defendant:
C.O. Tucker, C.P.L. Penda, Lt. Rowe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Dove v. Friday et al
as 1:2021cv02372
Plaintiff:
Corey Lee Dove
Defendant:
Cleveland Friday, C.O. Elijah Garnett and Lt. Lee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Redd v. Watts et al
as 1:2021cv01885
Plaintiff:
Orlando Redd
Defendant:
Director Gail Watts, C.O. Owoeye and C.O. Ayodole
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Pevia v Commissioner of Corrections et al
as 1:2021cv01656
Plaintiff:
Donald R Pevia
Defendant:
Commissioner of Corrections, Warden, Frank Bishop, C.O. II Muir and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Parsons v. Weber et al
as 1:2021cv01253
Defendant:
Acting Warden R. Shane Weber, C.O. II B. Wilburn, C.O. II E. Layton and others
Plaintiff:
Terry Glenn Parsons, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
McFadden v. Montely
as 1:2020cv03374
Defendant:
C.O. II Montely
Plaintiff:
Allen McFadden
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Roberts v. Yaider et al
as 1:2020cv01843
Defendant:
Kimberly Stewart, C.O. II J. Yaider and William Miller
Plaintiff:
Brandon Roberts
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Clark v. Montgomery County Police Department et al
as 1:2020cv01194
Plaintiff:
Christopher J. Clark
Defendant:
Montgomery County Police Department, Montgomery County Correctional Facility, C.O. M. Mitchum and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
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.
