Cases 51 - 60 of 277
MORGAN v. WARD et al
as 7:2021cv00033
Defendant:
SHAWN EMMONS, SCOTT CRICKMAR, ROBERT TOOLE and others
Plaintiff:
SHEM O MORGAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
USA v. Robert Toole
as 21-10651
Defendant / Appellant:
ROBERT TOOLE
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cassady v. Ward et al
as 6:2021cv00015
Defendant:
Robert Toole, Commissioner Timothy Ward and Warden Trevonza Bobbitt
Plaintiff:
David Dwayne Cassady
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Glenn v. Johnson State Prison
as 3:2021cv00012
Defendant:
Kochelle Watson, Lt. FNU Causwell, FNU Morris and others
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Martin Glenn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Young v. Ward et al
as 4:2021cv00020
Plaintiff:
Damon Young
Defendant:
RN Cocran, Alisa Evans, Jack Koon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Christopher Amerson v. Sherry Bland, et al
as 21-10194
Defendant / Appellee:
THOMAS ROBERT TOOL, Regional Director G.D.C., individually and official capacities, GREGORY DOZIER, Dept. of Corrections, individually and official capacities, TIMOTHY WARD, Commissioner, individually and official capacities and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER LEE AMERSON
SIMPSON v. WICKER et al
as 5:2021cv00006
Plaintiff:
JOHN LAMAR SIMPSON
Defendant:
Robert Toole, Dep Warden Security Josh Wicker and OFFICER BENJAMIN FORD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brandon Morrall v. Warden, et al
as 21-10144
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRANDON MORRALL
Defendant / Appellee:
WARDEN, JOSHUA JONES and ROBERT TOOLE, (field director) all of Hays State Prison
Daker v. Ward et al
as 6:2021cv00003
Defendant:
Ms. [FNU] Mosely, Dr. Sharon Lewis, Mr. [FNU] Whitfield and others
Plaintiff:
Waseem Daker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DIAMOND v. WARD et al
as 5:2020cv00453
Defendant:
JACK SAULS, ARETHA SMITH, RODNEY JACKSON and others
Plaintiff:
ASHLEY DIAMOND
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.
