Cases 81 - 90 of 653
Wright v. Lotti et al
as 1:2022cv04193
Plaintiff:
Robert Jerome Wright
Defendant:
Vincent A. Lotti, Darius Pattilo, Sabriya H. Hill and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MCNAIRY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2022cv00866
Petitioner:
DARIUS STEPHEN MCNAIRY
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Washington v. Cool
as 3:2022cv01634
Petitioner:
Darius Washington
Respondent:
Warden Willaim Cool
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Phillips v. G. Pitchford et al
as 1:2022cv04906
Plaintiff:
Darius Phillips
Defendant:
G. Pitchford, Donald Shelton and Illinois Prisoner Review Board
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tucker v. Thomas
as 6:2022cv00065
Plaintiff:
Darius Tucker
Defendant:
Dr. Dilip Thomas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MCNAIRY v. USA
as 1:2022cv00752
Petitioner:
DARIUS STEPHEN MCNAIRY
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
PRINTUP v. ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC et al
as 2:2022cv00384
Plaintiff:
DARIUS PRINTUP
Defendant:
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, CORRECTION OFFICER B. BUTLER, CHRISTOPHER HOLCOMB and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PRINTUP v. VANIHEL et al
as 2:2022cv00380
Plaintiff:
DARIUS PRINTUP
Defendant:
FRANK VANIHEL, K. VINARDI, CHRISTOPHER HOLCOMB and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MARSHALL v. PRETORIUS
as 1:2022cv01625
Petitioner:
DARIUS MARSHALL
Respondent:
T. PRETORIUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bowens v. Ishee et al
as 1:2022cv00153
Plaintiff:
Darius Bowens and Darious Bowens
Defendant:
Todd Ishee, Eddie Buffaloe, Mike Slagle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
