Cases 1 - 10 of 67
CLARK v. NOVO NORDISK A/S et al
as 2:2026cv02394
Plaintiff:
ADAM CLARK
Defendant:
NOVO NORDISK A/S, NOVO NORDISK INC. and ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
CLARK v. NOVO NORDISK A/S et al
as 2:2026cv03430
Plaintiff:
ADAM CLARK
Defendant:
NOVO NORDISK A/S, NOVO NORDISK INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Robertson v. Clark et al
as 4:2026cv00311
Plaintiff:
Michael Robertson
Defendant:
Adam Clark and J Madden
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stanley v. Thompson et al
as 4:2026cv00139
Plaintiff:
Eric Michael Stanley
Defendant:
Amber Thompson, Casey Hinnah, Adam Pence and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 vp Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection
Richmond v. Arkansas Department of Corrections et al
as 4:2026cv00288
Plaintiff:
Justin Keith Richmond
Defendant:
Arkansas Department of Corrections, Adam Clark, Madden and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Holliday v. Payne et al
as 4:2026cv00192
Plaintiff:
Russell Holliday
Defendant:
Dexter Payne, Joe Paige, III, Adam Clark and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Michael Robertson v. Adam Clark, et al
as 26-1202
Plaintiff:
Michael Otis Robertson
Defendant:
Adam Clark, Deputy Warden, Pine Bluff Unit and Jamesha Madden, Major, Pine Bluff Unit
Allen v. Clark et al
as 4:2025cv01093
Plaintiff:
Malachi Allen
Defendant:
Adam Clark and Anthony Jackson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hamner v. Payne et al
as 4:2025cv00450
Plaintiff:
Charles Hamner
Defendant:
Dexter Payne, Dale Reed, Jamesha Madden and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clark v. Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2025cv00430
Plaintiff:
Adam Clark
Defendant:
James J Edwards, Thomas Morris and Montreal Alexander
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
