Cases 1 - 10 of 31
Donelson v. Mindi
as 3:2022cv03177
Petitioner:
Charles Donelson
Respondent:
Mindi Nurse
Not Classified By Court:
Habeas Attorney General
Defendant:
Paul Blackwell, Leonta Jackson, William E Cox and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Donelson v. Jackson
as 1:2021cv01130
Petitioner:
Charles Donelson
Not Classified By Court:
Habeas Attorney General
Respondent:
Leonta Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Donelson v. Pfister et al
as 1:2018cv01117
Plaintiff:
Charles Donelson
Defendant:
Randy Pfister, Donald Gish, Angelica Joyner and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Donelson v. Tanner et al
as 1:2017cv08078
Plaintiff:
Charles Donelson
Defendant:
Q. Tanner, Saleh Obaisi, Latonya Wiiiams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles Donelson v. Randy Pfister
as 17-2147
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES DONELSON
Respondent - Appellee:
RANDY PFISTER
Charles Donelson v. Randy Pfister
as 17-1030
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES DONELSON
Respondent - Appellee:
RANDY PFISTER
Charles Donelson v. George Holton, et al
as 16-4157
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES DONELSON
Defendant - Appellee:
GEORGE HOLTON, MICHAEL BAKER and KEVIN CARTWRIGHT, Lieutenant
Charles Donelson v. Executive Committee of the Uni
as 16-3284
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES DONELSON
Defendant - Appellee:
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Donelson v. Dart et al
as 1:2015cv10295
Plaintiff:
Charles Donelson
Defendant:
Tom Dart, Supt. Martinez, Cermak and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles Donelson v. Randy Pfister, et al
as 15-1260
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES DONELSON
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDY PFISTER, Warden, Pontiac Correctional Center, SUSAN PRENTICE, Lieutenant, Previously known as K. Prentice, PATRICK MCGINNIS, Lieutenant, Previously known as .McGinnis 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.
