Cases 1 - 10 of 78
Evans v. Coffee Correctional Facility
as 1:2024cv00212
Petitioner:
Charles Raymond Evans, III
Respondent:
Coffee Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
EARLS v. COLLINS et al
as 3:2023cv00303
Plaintiff:
CHARLES RAYMOND EARLS, III
Defendant:
JOHN COLLINS, BARR, TIPTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
GUEST v. POMERANTZ et al
as 2:2023cv21358
Plaintiff:
CHARLES RAYMOND GUEST
Defendant:
M.D. JEFFREY POMERANTZ, JOHN/JANE DOE'S, JEFFREY POMERANTZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
US v. Charles Wable
as 23-4605
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
CHARLES RAYMOND WABLE
Charles Albright v. Kris Karberg
as 23-2578
Petitioner / Appellant:
Charles Raymond Albright
Respondent / Appellee:
Kris Karberg, Warden, Anamosa State Penitentiary
McNichols v. Armark Corporation et al
as 0:2023cv00073
Plaintiff:
Charles Raymond McNichols
Defendant:
Armark Corporation, Theresa Gutett and Adam Bare
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Wable v. North Central Regional Jail (Jane Doe) et al
as 5:2023cv00208
Plaintiff:
Charles Raymond Wable
Defendant:
North Central Regional Jail (Jane Doe), Jane Doe, Jane Doe 2 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
McNichols v. McKenzie et al
as 0:2023cv00061
Plaintiff:
Charles Raymond McNichols
Defendant:
Shawn McKenzie, Brian Dickerson, Joshua Montgomery and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
McNichols v. Bradley et al
as 0:2023cv00063
Plaintiff:
Charles Raymond McNichols
Defendant:
David Bradley, Ivan Know, Shawn McKenzie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
McNichols v. Armark Corp. et al
as 0:2023cv00062
Plaintiff:
Charles Raymond McNichols
Defendant:
Armark Corp., Theresa Gullett and Adam Bare
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
