Cases 1 - 10 of 37
Drew v. Equity Lifestyle Properties et al
as 3:2024cv08050
Plaintiff:
Corey Drew
Defendant:
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Thousand Trails, MHC Property Management and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bartles (PS) v. Sazama et al
as 1:2024cv00080
Plaintiff:
Dustin Bartles
Defendant:
No Named Defendant, James Sazama, Jackie Stimac and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MOSLEY v. BARTLE et al
as 2:2023cv04169
Plaintiff:
JAMES MOSLEY
Defendant:
HARVEY BARTLE, III, L. FELIPE RESTREPO, FLOYD J. MILLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bartles v. No Named Defendant
as 1:2023cv00458
Plaintiff:
Dustin Bartles
Defendant:
No Named Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jenkins, Donta v. Bertleson et al
as 3:2022cv00480
Plaintiff:
Donta Jenkins
Defendant:
J/O Bertleson, J/O Russel, J/O Beth and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wetmore v. Schroder et al
as 3:2022cv00268
Plaintiff:
Richard Andrew Wetmore
Defendant:
Edward Schroder, Anthony Bartling and Racheal Baughan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Barnes v. Cass County Jail Staff et al
as 3:2021cv00930
Plaintiff:
Zachary D Barnes
Defendant:
Cass County Jail Staff, Tony Bartling, Mike Anderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Oliver v. Bartling
as 2:2018cv02712
Plaintiff:
Henry Oliver
Defendant:
Nancy Bartling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bartling v. Heimgartner, et al
as 17-3112
Petitioner - Petitioner:
ADAM BARTLING
Respondent - Appellee:
JAMES HEIMGARTNER and KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROEBUCK v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2017cv01930
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY ROEBUCK
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT , WALTER BARTLE , NATHAN RAMOS 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.
