Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Best v. Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility
as 26-1595
Petitioner:
HILARY BEST, Relator on behalf of Koran Chambers
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT, Clinton Correctional Facility
Best v. Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility
as 1:2026cv02969
Plaintiff:
Hilary Best
Defendant:
Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barry v. McIntosh
as 26-643
Plaintiff:
MAMADOU BARRY
Defendant:
DONITA MCINTOSH, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility, ADAM FRENYA, Deputy of Security, Clinton Correctional Facility, TANIE HARRIGAN, D.S.H., Clinton Correctional Facility and others
Stewart v. King
as 26-444
Petitioner:
MICHAEL STEWART
Respondent:
MARIEJOSEE KING, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility
Rockefeller v. King
as 26-211
Petitioner:
JEFFREY M. ROCKEFELLER
Respondent:
M. KING, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility
Nova v. Artus
as 26-184
Petitioner:
JULIO NOVA
Respondent:
DALE ARTUS, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility
Cox v. The United States of America et al
as 1:2025cv10842
Defendant:
Jay Z, The United States of America, The U Program and others
Plaintiff:
Henry Cox
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Randolph v. New York City et al
as 9:2025cv01514
Plaintiff:
Ryan Randolph and Jack Simpson
Defendant:
New York City, New York State, Mid State Correctional Facility and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Randolph v. New York City et al
as 1:2025cv08130
Plaintiff:
Ryan K. Randolph
Defendant:
New York City, New York State, Mid State Correctional Facility and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Carr v. Kirkpatrick
as 25-1875
Petitioner:
PHILLIP CARR
Respondent:
Superintendent MICHAEL KIRKPATRICK, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility
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.
