Cases 1 - 10 of 10
ASHLOCK v ROGATNICK et al
as 2:2021cv00286
Defendant:
WALTER BRYAN ASHLOCK, ROGATNICK, CINDY MCGEE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
HUGHES v. GEO GROUP, INC. et al
as 1:2019cv04997
Defendant:
SEVERE, DOES 1-100, STACIE SCOTT and others
Plaintiff:
MARK S. HUGHES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HUGHES v. CARTER et al
as 1:2019cv01809
Defendant:
DOES 1-100, CARL KUENZLI, ROBERT E. CARTER and others
Plaintiff:
MARK S. HUGHES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
David Shanks v. R. Leyendecker, et al
as 11-2869
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID L. SHANKS
Defendant - Appellee:
R. LEYENDECKER, JOHN DOES, 1-100, OFFICER ANDERSON and others
HUGHES et al v. BUSS et al
as 1:2009cv01322
Plaintiff:
MARK S. HUGHES, LAWRENCE BETHEA, COREY HABEGGER and others
Defendant:
EDWIN G. BUSS, KELLEY KURTZ, D. HENSHAW and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jerry Saenz v. Gerald Berge, et al
as 09-3525
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JERRY SAENZ
Defendant - Appellee:
GERALD A. BERGE, BRADLEY HOMPE, LIEUTENANT BIGGERS and others
Daniel McBride v. Matthew Frank, et al
as 09-3226
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DANIEL R. MCBRIDE
Defendant - Appellee:
MATTHEW J. FRANK, STEVEN SCHUELER, JOHN DOES, 1-100 in their official and individual capacities and others
HUGHES et al v. INDIANA COMMISSIONER DOE (INDIANA DEPT. CORR.) et al
as 1:2009cv00587
Plaintiff:
SEAN M. HUGHES and HAROLD LOESTON
Defendant:
INDIANA COMMISSIONER DOE (INDIANA DEPT. CORR.) and DEFENDANT DOES 1-100
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Romano et al
as 1:2007cv02851
Plaintiff:
Marcus Williams
Defendant:
Romano, Salavador Godinez, Thomas Dart and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Edwards v. Tibbetts et al
as 1:2007cv03119
Plaintiff:
William Edwards
Defendant:
David C. Tibbetts, Valarie Turner, Mary Hodge and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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.
