Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Timmy Reichling v. T.J. Fikes, et al
as 22-2366
Petitioner / Appellant:
Timmy J. Reichling
Respondent / Appellee:
T. J. Fikes, Warden, Dr. Ann LaValley-Wood, Chief Psychologist, D. Drillings, Correctional Officer and others
Respondent:
Dr. Warlick, Staff Psychologist, R. Zaudkte, Correctional Officer, T. Scullard, Correctional Officer and others
Reichling v. Fikes
as 0:2022cv00081
Petitioner:
Timmy J. Reichling
Respondent:
T.J. Fikes, Dr. Lavalley Wood, Dr. Warlick and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Elliott v. Wilson et al
as 0:2015cv01908
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Elliott
Defendant:
Denise Wilson, Maerske, Lee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Stevens v. Dayton et al
as 0:2012cv00495
Plaintiff:
Karl Godfrey Stevens
Defendant:
Mark Dayton, Lori Swanson, Cal Ludeman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Poole v. Dayton et al
as 0:2012cv00441
Plaintiff:
James Robinson Poole
Defendant:
Mark Dayton, Lori Swanson, Cal Ludeman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Norton v. Ludeman et al
as 0:2012cv00440
Plaintiff:
Russell Norton
Defendant:
Cal R. Ludeman, Lucinda Jesson, Dennis Benson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dotson v. Dayton et al
as 0:2012cv00345
Plaintiff:
Darrin Edward Dotson
Defendant:
Mark Dayton, Lori Swanson, Cal Ludeman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hajek v. Dayton et al
as 0:2012cv00343
Plaintiff:
Joseph Allen Hajek
Defendant:
Mark Dayton, Lori Swanson, Cal Ludeman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hartleib v. Dayton et al
as 0:2012cv00344
Plaintiff:
Lloyd Hartleib
Defendant:
Mark Dayton, Lori Swanson, Cal Ludeman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fries v. Dayton et al
as 0:2012cv00062
Plaintiff:
James D. Fries
Defendant:
Mark Dayton, Lori Swanson, Cal Ludeman 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.
