Cases 41 - 50 of 62
ANKH EL v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2016cv00852
Plaintiff:
MENES ANKH EL
Defendant:
SHEILA CARLISLE, TERRY CURRY, DANIEL HARRISON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ANKH EL v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 2:2015cv00391
Defendant:
ROBERT ALTICE, AMY BARBAR, SHEILA CARLISLE and others
Plaintiff:
MENES ANKH EL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
ANKH EL v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 2:2015cv00280
Plaintiff:
MENES ANKH EL
Defendant:
SHEILA CARLISLE, TERRY CURRY, DANIEL HARRISON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
FRALEY v. KELLOGE et al
as 4:2015cv00089
Defendant:
CAPEHART, DOOLEY, JORDAN KELLOGE and others
Plaintiff:
HARRISON TEDDY FRALEY, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STUDY v. MEYER et al
as 2:2015cv00101
Plaintiff:
JOHN STUDY
Defendant:
TODD J. MEYER, KEN CAMPBELL, MATTHEW C. KINCAID and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CROCKETT v. BUTTS et al
as 1:2013cv01840
Defendant:
KEITH BUTTS, DICK, DUNN and others
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM CROCKETT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
ANKH EL et al v. HILL et al
as 1:2013cv01471
Defendant:
M. ADDINGTON, ROBERT R. ALTICE, AMY BARBAR and others
Plaintiff:
MENES ANKH EL and TYREESE TAYLOR-BEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Harrison v. Superintendent
as 3:2013cv00776
Petitioner:
Daniel Harrison
Respondent:
Superintendent
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
UNDERHILL v. BURKE et al
as 1:2013cv00887
Defendant:
ROBERT BURKE, HARRISON, GERALD THOMPSON and others
Plaintiff:
RICKY UNDERHILL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Harrison v. Superintendent
as 3:2013cv00099
Petitioner:
Joshua Harrison
Respondent:
Superintendent
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.
