Cases 21 - 30 of 87
HARRIS v. INDIANA PAROLE BOARD et al
as 1:2021cv00956
Defendant:
RIVER CITY POLYGRAPH, INDIANAPOLIS COUNSELING CENTER, LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORP. and others
Plaintiff:
BRADLEY J. HARRIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KLOCK v. INDIANA PAROLE BOARD et al
as 1:2021cv00498
Plaintiff:
VINCENT KLOCK
Defendant:
GWENDOLYN M. HORTH, INDIANA PAROLE BOARD and CRAIG SMITH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PASSMORE et al v. INDIANA PAROLE BOARD et al
as 2:2020cv00586
Defendant:
ROBERT CARTER, JR., G.M. HORTH, ERIC J. HOLCOMB and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL PASSMORE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PASSMORE v. INDIANA PAROLE BOARD
as 2:2020cv00514
Respondent:
INDIANA PAROLE BOARD
Petitioner:
MICHAEL PASSMORE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
QUARLES v. INDIANA PAROLE BOARD
as 2:2020cv00465
Petitioner:
DAMON QUARLES
Respondent:
INDIANA PAROLE BOARD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TAIFA v. INDIANA PAROLE BOARD et al
as 1:2020cv02198
Plaintiff:
KATAZA TAIFA
Defendant:
CURRENT PAROLE OFFICER, PAROLE OFFICE SUPERVISOR and INDIANA PAROLE BOARD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HARRIS v. INDIANA PAROLE BOARD et al
as 1:2020cv01165
Plaintiff:
BARDLEY J. HARRIS and BRADLEY J. HARRIS
Defendant:
CONTRACTORS OF THE INDIANA PAROLE BOARD and INDIANA PAROLE BOARD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CANTU v. INDIANA PAROLE BOARD et al
as 2:2019cv00608
Respondent:
CURTIS HILL, JR., INDIANA PAROLE BOARD and INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTION
Petitioner:
ANTONIO CANTU, SR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
LEYBA v. HOLCOMB et al
as 2:2019cv00226
Respondent:
INDIANA PAROLE BOARD, WARDEN and ERIC HOLCOMB
Petitioner:
ERWIN LEYBA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cantu v. Department of Justice et al
as 3:2019cv00355
Plaintiff:
Antonio Cantu, Sr and Tony Cantu
Defendant:
Crawford, French, Singleton and others
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.
