Cases 21 - 30 of 919
Armour v. Lamont
as 3:2023cv01606
Plaintiff:
Shaquan L Armour
Defendant:
Ned Lamont
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moon v. Bramlett et al
as 4:2023cv01560
Plaintiff:
Darnell Wesly Moon
Defendant:
Kim Bramlett, Lynn Lyons, Ned Boyd and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
Moon v. Macke et al
as 4:2023cv01563
Plaintiff:
Darnell Moon and Darnell W. Moon
Defendant:
Daniel Macke, Kim Bramlett, Charles Doerge and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
Monroe v. Lamont et al
as 3:2023cv01584
Plaintiff:
Timothy C. Monroe
Defendant:
Ned Lamont and Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. McCormack
as 1:2023cv10522
Petitioner:
Rafael Arden Jones
Respondent:
Ned McCormack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Clark v. State of Connecticut et al
as 3:2023cv01527
Plaintiff:
Gordon Clark
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, Office of Governor Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Wang v. Quiros
as 23-7800
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LISHAN WANG
Defendant / Appellee:
ANGEL QUIROS, Commissioner, Department of Correction (DOC) State of Connecticut, NED LAMONT, Governer, State of Connecticut (CT), REIS, Warden, Cheshire Correctional Institution (CCI) DOC, CT and others
LOGAN v. LAMONT et al
as 3:2023cv21174
Plaintiff:
MARY BASILE LOGAN
Defendant:
NED LAMONT, JOHN CARNEY, CHARLIE BAKER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv01337
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Purdy v. James et al
as 0:2023cv03148
Petitioner:
Jeffrey Colin Purdy
Respondent:
Kendal James, Ned G. Wohlman and Jordan DePonty
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
