Cases 11 - 20 of 26
Randolph v. New York State
as 9:2014cv00182
Plaintiff:
Ryan Keith Randolph
Defendant:
New York State
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Randolph v. Clinton Dannemora N.Y.S.
as 9:2014cv00121
Plaintiff:
Ryan Keith Randolph
Defendant:
Clinton Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thorton et al v. Maryland General Hospital, Inc.
as 1:2013cv00162
Plaintiff:
Denise Thorton , Adrian Miles and Keith Randolph
Defendant:
Maryland General Hospital, Inc. , Dana Lee, M.D. and Harold T. Rowson
Thirdparty_plaintiff:
Maryland General Hospital, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Medical Malpractice
Randolph v. New York State
as 9:2012cv01031
Plaintiff:
Ryan Keith Randolph
Defendant:
New York State
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Randolph v. Clinton Correctional Facility
as 9:2012cv00608
Plaintiff:
Ryan Keith Randolph
Defendant:
Clinton Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Randolph v. Clinton Co Facility
as 1:2012cv01851
Plaintiff:
Ryan Keith Randolph
Defendant:
Clinton Co Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Randolph v. The Courtroom Interpreter, Dec
as 12-434
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Ryan Keith Randolph
Defendant - Appellee:
The Courtroom Interpreter, Dec 19th Tran in Part 44, 100 Center Street
Randolph v. Clinton Correctional Facility
as 9:2012cv00099
Plaintiff:
Ryan Keith Randolph
Defendant:
Clinton Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Randolph v. Clinton Correctional Facility
as 1:2011cv09120
Plaintiff:
Ryan Keith Randolph
Defendant:
Clinton Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Randolph v. The Courtroom Interpreter, Dec 19th Tran in Part 44, 100 Center Street
as 1:2011cv04402
Plaintiff:
Ryan Keith Randolph
Defendant:
The Courtroom Interpreter, Dec 19th Tran in Part 44, 100 Center Street
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.
