Cases 61 - 70 of 121
Hinzo v. State of N.M. Dept. of Corr., et al
as 13-2060
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JUSTIN JAMES HINZO
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, GEORGE TAPIA, WEXFORD MEDICAL SERVICES and others
Johnson v. G.E.O. Group Inc., et al
as 1:2013cv00591
Plaintiff:
Jesse Johnson
Defendant:
Joe D. Driver, Tami Anding and G.E.O. Group Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Horton et al
as 4:2013cv00010
Plaintiff:
Randy C. Williams
Defendant:
Vince Horton, B. Grimes, G.E.O. Group, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lopez v. G.E.O. Group Inc., et al.
as 2:2012cv00830
Plaintiff:
David J. Lopez
Defendant:
G.E.O. Group Inc and B. Gania
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ardron v. G.E.O. Group Inc. et al
as 4:2012cv00203
Plaintiff:
Joseph Wayne Ardron
Defendant:
G.E.O. Group Inc., Victor Robinson, R. Lewis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Anderson v. Rice et al
as 4:2012cv00064
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Anderson
Defendant:
M. Rice, E.M.C.F. and G.E.O.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Horton et al
as 4:2012cv00057
Plaintiff:
Gentry Tre-maine Smith
Defendant:
V. Horton, EMCF/G.E.O. Group, Inc., Bart Grimes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Horton et al
as 3:2013cv00958
Plaintiff:
Gentry Tre-maine Smith
Defendant:
V. Horton , G.E.O. Group, Inc. , Bart Grimes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Santiago v. G.E.O Halfway House et al
as 1:2012cv01908
Plaintiff:
Samuel Santiago
Defendant:
G.E.O Halfway House, B.O.P., Pierre Leconte and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fontes v. United States Of America et al
as 4:2012cv00040
Respondent:
Attorney General, Federal Bureau of Prisons, G.E.O. and others
Petitioner:
Francisco Guarnero Fontes
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.
