Cases 1 - 10 of 72
RICHARDS v. EMERSON
as 1:2024cv00745
Petitioner:
RANDALL RICHARDS
Respondent:
DONALD EMERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
STONE v. EMERSON et al
as 2:2024cv00157
Plaintiff:
JEREMY STONE
Defendant:
DONALD EMERSON, SNODGRASS, JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RUTH-BRADLEY v. SIPICH et al
as 1:2024cv00666
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH JAMES RUTH-BRADLEY
Defendant:
CARRIE SIPICH, DERRIK HOBBS, FOSTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
FORGEY v. INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2024cv00610
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW HERBERT FORGEY
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, TRICIA PRETORIUS, EMERSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DURHAM v. EMERSON
as 1:2024cv00538
Petitioner:
DARRELL DURHAM
Respondent:
EMERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BURRITT v. EMERSON et al
as 1:2024cv00407
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW BURRITT
Defendant:
EMERSON, AMY ROLLINGS and DAWN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MIDDLETON v. EMERSON et al
as 1:2024cv00341
Plaintiff:
JASON MICHAEL MIDDLETON
Defendant:
EMERSON, AUSTIN, HARTZEL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
REEVES v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2024cv00260
Plaintiff:
RICHARD REEVES
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, EMERSON, NEWMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WHITFIELD v. STIEN et al
as 1:2024cv00100
Plaintiff:
NARVEL WHITFIELD
Defendant:
STIEN, HARTZEL, ABNEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JOHNSON v. EMERSON et al
as 1:2023cv02300
Plaintiff:
KEAGAN ISSAC JOHNSON
Defendant:
DONALD EMERSON, SERVIZZI and CHRIS PLATT
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.
