Cases 21 - 30 of 46
Boatman v. Shemer et al
as 3:2011cv00505
Plaintiff:
Rayvon Boatman
Defendant:
M. Shemer, R. Bryant, L. Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Adams et al v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. et al
as 3:2011cv00125
Plaintiff:
Lafayette Adams , Thomas Adams , Jacqueline Alexander and others
Defendant:
Bally Gaming, Inc. , Cadillac Jack, Inc. , IGT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Parsons v. Filipowicz et al
as 2:2010cv00698
Plaintiff:
John Wayne Parsons
Defendant:
Kevin M. Filipowicz, William T. Thiessen, Carol Starling and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Crosby v. Godwin et al
as 3:2010cv50226
Plaintiff:
James Crosby
Defendant:
Lieutenant Godwin, Correctional Officer Andrews, Cindy Eyekamp and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reed et al v. Turner et al
as 1:2010cv01236
Plaintiff:
Henry Joseph Thunder Reed, Richard Gauna and Ricky Morgan
Defendant:
Ronald Turner, Joe Easterling, Danny Dodd and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CROSBY v. PERDUE et al
as 1:2010cv00580
Plaintiff:
KELVIN JAMES CROSBY
Defendant:
BEVERLY PERDUE, BRENDA JONES FOX, DEBBIE MONTOOMERY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KING v. CROSBY
as 4:2010cv00300
Plaintiff:
LAMONT CLIFFORD KING
Defendant:
JAMES CROSBY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KING v. CROSBY
as 3:2010cv00258
Petitioner:
LAMONT CLIFFORD KING
Respondent:
JAMES CROSBY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Crosby v. Heil et al
as 1:2010cv00951
Plaintiff:
David James Crosby
Defendant:
Margaret Heil, J. D. Scollard, Christine Tyler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charlie Robinson v. Secretary, DOC, et al
as 10-11389
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLIE ROBINSON
Defendant - Appellee:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Walter McNeil, JAMES CROSBY, Former, Secretary Department of Corrections, ORLESTER DICKENS, Secretary's Representative and others
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.
