Cases 51 - 60 of 99
Danforth v. Holcomb
as 2:2021cv00296
Plaintiff:
Jennifer Danforth
Defendant:
Eric Holcomb
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
WALKER v. NOWASKOWSKI et al
as 1:2021cv02291
Plaintiff:
DONALD R. WALKER
Defendant:
RICHARD R. NOWASKOWSKI, MARK R. STETZEL, JENNIFER K. BARTEK and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 dp
WILLIAMS v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2021cv01852
Plaintiff:
OTIS WILLIAMS
Defendant:
ERIC HOLCOMB and GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOLLINGSWORTH v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 2:2021cv00205
Defendant:
MIKE RAINS d/b/a, Putnamville Correctional Facility, Deputy Warden, TODD ROKITA d/b/a, Indiana Attorney General, ERIC HOLCOMB d/b/a, Governor and others
Plaintiff:
SHAQUILLE HOLLINGSWORTH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JOHNSON et al v. DAVIES COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE et al
as 1:2021cv00942
Defendant:
CITY OF WASHINGTON, INDIANA, KEITH HINDERLITER, ERIC HOLCOMB and others
Plaintiff:
CHARLES JOHNSON and DOES pro se
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HERZ v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2021cv00618
Defendant:
DONALD HARRIS, MARC ROTHENBERG, VERIZON WIRELESS and others
Plaintiff:
CAROLYN WENDY HERZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
SWEENEY v. HOLCOMB et al
as 2:2021cv00101
Respondent:
FRANK VANIHEL, ERIC HOLCOMB and INDIANA DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Petitioner:
CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cody v. Daniels et al
as 3:2021cv00073
Plaintiff:
Contrell Deandre Cody
Defendant:
Mitch Daniels, Ron Neal and Eric Holcomb
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CODY v. DANIELS et al
as 1:2021cv00263
Plaintiff:
CONTRELL DEANDRE CODY
Defendant:
MITCH DANIELS, RON NEAL and ERIC HOLCOMB
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOTEP-EL v. CARTER et al
as 2:2021cv00059
Plaintiff:
YUSUF HOTEP-EL and JOSEPH DUWAYNE TUNSTILL
Defendant:
DUSHAN ZATECKY, RICHARD HAGENMAIEER, T. PHEGLER 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.
