Cases 1 - 10 of 28
MENZIE v. HOLCOMB et al
as 1:2023cv00506
Plaintiff:
RONALD E. MENZIE
Defendant:
ERIC HOLCOMB, CITY OF NEW CASTLE, STATE OF INDIANA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WALKER v. NOWASKOWSKI et al
as 1:2021cv02291
Plaintiff:
DONALD R. WALKER
Defendant:
RICHARD R. NOWASKOWSKI, MARK R. STETZEL, JENNIFER K. BARTEK and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 dp
Martinez v. Cataldo et al
as 3:2021cv00471
Defendant:
Vicki Elaine Becker, Wendy Hudson, Christopher J Anderson and others
Plaintiff:
Jairo A Martinez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MARTINEZ v. CATALDO et al
as 1:2021cv01856
Defendant:
VICKI ELAINE BECKER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR., WENDY HUDSON and others
Plaintiff:
JAIRO A. MARTINEZ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROUZIER v. WEXFORD MEDICAL SOURCE et al
as 2:2021cv00072
Defendant:
CHERYL PETTY, JANE DOE, DUSHAN ZATECKY and others
Plaintiff:
RUSSELL ROUZIER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DUNIGAN v. HILL
as 1:2021cv00212
Defendant:
CURTIS T. HILL
Plaintiff:
LEE EVANS DUNIGAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PERRY v. ZATECKY et al
as 1:2020cv02916
Petitioner:
RODNEY S. PERRY, SR.
Respondent:
CURTIS T. HILL and DUSHAN ZATECKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SWEENEY v. INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGES et al
as 2:2020cv00333
Plaintiff:
CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR.
Defendant:
CURTIS T. HILL and INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lopez v. Indiana State of et al
as 3:2020cv00529
Defendant:
Julianne Kay Havens, Frank Albert Rodriguez, Indiana State of and others
Plaintiff:
Rodolfo Antonio Lopez, Jr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pavlock et al v. Holcomb et al
as 2:2019cv00466
Plaintiff:
Kimberley Pavlock, Randall Pavlock and Raymond Cahnman
Defendant:
Eric J Holcomb, Tom Laycock, Curtis T Hill and others
Intervenor Defendant:
Save the Dunes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
