Cases 1 - 10 of 12
COMMON CAUSE et al v. MOORE et al
as 1:2022cv00611
Plaintiff:
COMMON CAUSE, ELIZABETH MARION SMITH, SETH EFFRON and others
Defendant:
TIMOTHY K. MOORE and PHILLIP E. BERGER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00799
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Dixie v. Daye
as 1:2021cv00285
Plaintiff:
Kevin Lee Dixie
Defendant:
Raquel C Daye
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Benjamin Muhammad v. Wendy Kelley, et al
as 15-1525
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Benjamin Muhammad
Plaintiff:
Adriene Tisdale, Tracy Kent Novak, Toby Robinson and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Rory Griffin, Medical Director, William Straughn, Warden, Tucker Maximum Security Unit and others
Muhammad et al v. Hobbs et al
as 5:2014cv00375
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Muhammad, Adriene Tisdale, Charles Robinson and others
Defendant:
Ray Hobbs, Rory Griffin, William F Straughn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Hamkar, et al.
as 2:2014cv02365
Plaintiff:
Keith Thomas
Defendant:
B. Hamkar, Eureka C. Daye and J. Lewis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Hamad, et al.
as 2:2014cv00044
Plaintiff:
Lonnie Williams
Defendant:
Hamad and Eureka C. Daye
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hollis v. Bal et al
as 2:2013cv02145
Plaintiff:
Marvin Glenn Hollis
Defendant:
J. Bal, Eureka C. Daye, P. Sahota and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mitchell v. Linggi, et al
as 2:2013cv02055
Plaintiff:
Derrick A. Mitchell
Defendant:
M. Linggi, Eureka C. Daye, Meghaddam and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hollis v. Sahota et al
as 2:2013cv01841
Plaintiff:
Marvin Glenn Hollis
Defendant:
P. Sahota, B. Hamkar, J. Bal 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.
