Cases 1 - 10 of 83
Rivera v. Anderson et al
as 7:2024cv00224
Plaintiff:
Denis Alberto Rivera
Defendant:
David Anderson, Harold W. Clarke, Randall C. Mathena and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Duffield Jail et al
as 7:2024cv00055
Plaintiff:
Samuel Smith
Defendant:
Duffield Jail, Chaplain R. Adams, Lt. R. Templeton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2023cv00813
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Wilson v. Clarke et al
as 7:2022cv00584
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Wilson
Defendant:
Harold Clarke, Dr. William Carr, Wendy Oyakowa and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chandler v. Corizon Health et al
as 3:2022cv00501
Plaintiff:
Derek M. Chandler
Defendant:
Corizon Health, Nurse Jackson and Dr. Gay
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Medical Malpractice
Chandler v. Corizon Health et al
as 1:2022cv00797
Defendant:
Derek M. Chandler, Corizon Health, Nurse Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Rivera v. Anderson et al
as 7:2022cv00182
Defendant:
M. D. Sturgill, David Anderson, Harold W. Clarke and others
Plaintiff:
Denis A. Rivera
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Melby v. Morgan et al
as 3:2022cv00134
Plaintiff:
Dajade Elijah Melby
Defendant:
Sheriff Gabe Morgan, Sr., Sgt. T. Walker, Sgt. G. Armstrong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chandler v. Clarke
as 3:2022cv00123
Plaintiff:
Denzel Chandler
Defendant:
Harold Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Chandler v. USA
as 4:2022cv81494
Petitioner:
Shabba Larun Chandler
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
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.
