Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Washington v. Elgin Mental Health Center et al
as 1:2020cv00495
Defendant:
Patty Pusillius, Dante Casipit, Elgin Mental Health Center and others
Plaintiff:
Daron Anthony Washington
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Turner v. Elgin Mental Health Ctr. et al
as 1:2019cv08446
Respondent:
John Doe and Elgin Mental Health Ctr.
Petitioner:
Lance Turner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Olsson v. Jung-Oliver et al
as 1:2018cv07084
Defendant:
James Corcaran, Maureen Jung-Oliver, Illinois Inspector General and others
Plaintiff:
Paul Olsson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ulmer v. Malis et al
as 1:2017cv02084
Plaintiff:
Lynn Ulmer
Defendant:
Richard Malis, Elgin Mental Health Center, Daniel Hardy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pruitt v. Dr. Susnjar et al
as 1:2017cv01380
Plaintiff:
Brandon Darryl Pruitt
Defendant:
Dr. Susnjar and Elgin Mental Health Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gdowik v. Hardy et al
as 1:2016cv10463
Plaintiff:
Conrad Gdowik
Defendant:
Daniel Hardy, Jeff Pharis, Kareemi and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nadzhafaliyev v. Hardy et al
as 1:2016cv06844
Plaintiff:
Ali Nadzhafaliyev
Defendant:
Daniel Hardy, Jeff Pharis, Nidea and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Grason v. Hardy et al
as 1:2015cv09290
Plaintiff:
Abby Grason
Defendant:
Daniel Hardy, Jeff Pharis, Ulsa Kartan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gunderson v. Pharls et al
as 1:2013cv03792
Plaintiff:
Sean Gunderson
Defendant:
Jeff Pharls, Elgin Mental Health Center (EMHC), Paul Brock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lim v. Head, Department of Human Service, Illinois et al
as 1:2013cv03170
Petitioner:
Khor Chin Lim
Respondent:
Head Department of Human Services, Illinois and Hospital Administrator, Elgin Mental Health Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
