Cases 1 - 10 of 91
Short Bear-Traversie v. U.S. Government
as 3:2024cv03006
Plaintiff:
Susy Short Bear-Traversie
Defendant:
U.S. Government, Dr. Smith, PA Cindy Erwin and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1402 Medical Malpractice
Woody v. Taylor et al
as 1:2024cv00105
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Woody
Defendant:
Keybo Taylor, Cleophas Atwater, J. Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Castro v. Smith
as 2:2023cv01409
Plaintiff:
John E Castro
Defendant:
Dr Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Casey v. Reaud et al
as 3:2023cv01439
Plaintiff:
Douglas Keith Casey
Defendant:
Wayne Reaud, C.I.A., F.B.I. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Lee v. Smith
as 1:2022cv06010
Plaintiff:
Chikym Lee
Defendant:
Dr. Smith and Officer Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Truman v. Shrader et al
as 7:2022cv00570
Plaintiff:
Cecil Guy Truman
Defendant:
Lt. M. Shrader, Sgt. C. Russo, Dr. Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Conley v. Mullins et al
as 7:2022cv00303
Plaintiff:
James Daniel Phillip Conley
Defendant:
Dr. Mullins and Dr. Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kalvin Coward v. Harold Clarke
as 22-6521
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KALVIN DONNELL COWARD, a/k/a Kelvin D. Coward
Defendant / Appellee:
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations, J. A. WOODSON, Warden - Augusta Correctional Center and others
Cargle v. Scandrett et al
as 1:2021cv04428
Plaintiff:
Steven Lee Cargle
Defendant:
Sheriff Reginald Scandrett, Captain E. Tanner, Lt. J. Banister and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Adams v. Wong et al
as 3:2021cv07602
Plaintiff:
Rineson Curtis Adams
Defendant:
Dr. Wong, California Medical Facility, Dr. Smith and others
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.
