Cases 1 - 10 of 25
Gilbert v. Simmons, et al
as 22-3259
Petitioner / Appellant:
CRAIG I. GILBERT and CRAIG IVAN GILBERT
Respondent / Appellee:
CHARLES SIMMONS, L. E. BRUCE and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-3224
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv03215
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Brown (ID 95054) v. Lundry et al
as 5:2019cv03152
Defendant:
Debra Lundry, Jennifer Clements, John Doe and others
Plaintiff:
William E. Brown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Sparling et al
as 3:2016cv00633
Plaintiff:
R Wayne Johnson
Defendant:
John Sparling, U.S.P. Serv. (1-5), Charles Simmons and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dunn v. Duckett-Gibson et al
as 3:2016cv00016
Plaintiff:
Johnathan Dunn
Defendant:
S. Duckett-Gibson, Charles Simmons, Jason Woodall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hernandez v. Simmons et al
as 3:2015cv00954
Plaintiff:
George Isaac Hernandez, Jr.
Defendant:
Charles Simmons, f/n/u Davis, f/n/u Howard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shaw (ID 07400) v. Simmons et al
as 5:2015cv03161
Plaintiff:
Dennis E. Shaw, III
Defendant:
Charles Simmons and Dave Riggin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Simmons v. Alabama Department of Corrections, The et al
as 2:2014cv01843
Plaintiff:
Charles Simmons
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, The, William and Baker
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Stote, et al v. Umass Correctional Health Care, et al
as 14-1827
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN E. STOTE
:
JAMES CYR and JOSE SIME
Plaintiff:
WAYNE D. CROSBY, TERRY CARTER, ENEZ KOLENVOVIC and others
Defendant - Appellee:
UMASS CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, UMASS MEDICAL SCHOOL, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 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.
