Cases 61 - 70 of 125
Sharber v. Bolton et al
as 3:2016cv00526
Plaintiff:
Darryn Brett Sharber
Defendant:
Mark Bolton, City of Louisville, Louisville Metro Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones-Bey v. Bolton
as 3:2016cv00484
Plaintiff:
Gary Lamar Jones-Bey
Defendant:
Mark Bolton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Payne v. Bolton
as 3:2016cv00318
Petitioner:
Tyrone Richard Payne
Respondent:
Mark Bolton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Hines v. Louisville Metro Government et al
as 3:2016cv00252
Plaintiff:
Larresia Hines
Defendant:
Louisville Metro Government , Mark Bolton and David Temple
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Thorton v. City of Louisville, Kentucky et al
as 3:2016cv00197
Plaintiff:
Michael Anthony Thorton
Defendant:
City of Louisville, Kentucky, Louisville Metro Department of Corrections, John Hagen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Franklin v. Fisher et al
as 3:2016cv00182
Plaintiff:
Lori Marie Franklin
Defendant:
Greg Fisher, Steve Conrad, Matthew Meagher and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Branham v. Bolton et al
as 3:2016cv00108
Plaintiff:
Bryan Anthony Branham
Defendant:
Mark Bolton, Martha Knox and Joe Blue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Prather v. Corrections Care Solutions et al
as 3:2016cv00060
Plaintiff:
James Archie Prather, Jr.
Defendant:
Corrections Care Solutions, Rozefort and Mark Bolton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gueye v. Richards et al
as 2:2015cv00178
Plaintiff:
Amar Gueye
Defendant:
Jeremy Richards, John Sieve, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Division of Domestic Relations and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Prather v. Corrections Care Solutions et al
as 3:2015cv00770
Plaintiff:
James Archie Prather, Jr.
Defendant:
Corrections Care Solutions, Louisville Metro Dept of Corr., Mark Bolton 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.
