Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Brandon Cain v. Carmen Palmer, et al
as 22-1336
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRANDON LEWIS CAIN
Defendant / Appellee:
CARMEN DENISE PALMER, Warden, GREGORY SKIPPER, Deputy Warden and ASSISTANT UNIT RESIDENTIAL SUPERVISOR UNKNOWN SMITH
Christopher Bey v. Carmen Palmer, et al
as 16-2790
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER L. BEY
Defendant - Appellee:
CARMEN DENISE PALMER, Warden, HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, Director, [UNKNOWN] SCHOOLEY, Deputy Warden and others
Joel Carter v. MDOC, et al
as 16-2663
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOEL CARTER
Defendant:
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Daniel Heyns, Director, KATHLEEN A. MUTSCHLER, Director, Corrections Mental Health Program, RICK RAYMOND, Western Regional Director, Corrections Mental Health Program and others
Defendant - Appellee:
PSYCHOLOGIST CARRIE MCROBERTS, SURJIT DINSA and JENNIFER PIRLOT, Mental Health Unit Chief
Larry Harrison v. Carmen Palmer, et al
as 16-1237
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LARRY E. HARRISON, aka Larry X - Edward: Harrison
Defendant - Appellee:
CARMEN DENISE PALMER, Warden, Warden, in personal capacity, UNKNOWN PARTY, named as Mail Room Supervisor, in personal capacity, UNKNOWN RLMONTRO, named as 30th Circuit Court Clerk Rlmontro, in personal and official capacity and others
Derrick Smith v. Daniel Heyns, et al
as 15-2393
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DERRICK LEE SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
DANIEL H. HEYNS, CARMEN DENISE PALMER, Warden, ANTHONY STEWART and others
Stanley Denhof v. Michigan, State of, et al
as 14-1960
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STANLEY GENE DENHOF
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHIGAN, STATE OF, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DANIEL H. HEYNS, Director of Prisons and others
Anthony Walton v. Daniel Heyns, et al
as 14-1677
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTHONY BERNARD WALTON
Defendant - Appellee:
DANIEL HEYNS, Director of Michigan Department of Corrections, ANTHONY STEWART, Deputy Warden, WILLIAM PITTMAN, Assistant ARUS and others
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.
