Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Thorpe v. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC et al
as 1:2023cv00052
Plaintiff:
Jeremy W. Thorpe
Defendant:
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Jeremy Smith, Valerie Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tankesly v. TN Department of Corrections et al (PSLC1)
as 1:2023cv00090
Plaintiff:
Calvin-Otis Tankesly, Jr.
Defendant:
TN Department of Corrections, Lisa Helton, Lee Dotson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Floyd v. Aramark Services, Inc. et al
as 1:2020cv00229
Defendant:
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC and Aramark Services, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Ronald Curtis Floyd
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Burgess v. Aramark Correctional Services et al
as 1:2018cv01208
Defendant:
Tony Parker, Reeves, Strictland and others
Plaintiff:
Clifford E. Burgess
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Haynes v. Aramark Correctional Services, Inc. et al
as 3:2018cv00175
Plaintiff:
Leonard Haynes
Defendant:
Aramark Correctional Services, Inc., Tennessee Department of Corrections, Tony Parker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tankesly v. Aramark Correctional Services et al
as 1:2018cv01058
Plaintiff:
Calvin Tankesly
Defendant:
Aramark Correctional Services, Monqie Skowronski, Pam Wright and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
March v. Aramark Corporation et al
as 3:2017cv00189
Plaintiff:
Perry Avram March
Defendant:
Aramark Corporation, Aramark Correction Services, LLC, Tennessee Department of Correction and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
March v. Aramark Corporation et al
as 3:2017cv00253
Plaintiff:
Perry Avram March
Defendant:
Aramark Corporation, Aramark Correction Services, LLC, Tennessee Department of Correction and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. City of Memphis et al
as 2:2014cv02295
Plaintiff:
Joseph E. Jones, III
Defendant:
City of Memphis, State of TN, Shelby County D.A. Office 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.
