Cases 21 - 30 of 255
Npimnee v. State of Nebraska et al
as 8:2022cv00409
Plaintiff:
Davonte Hazel, Hope Npimnee and Titus Williams
Defendant:
State of Nebraska, Lancaster County Jail and William Goracke
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Brown et al
as 4:2022cv03236
Plaintiff:
David Maurice Jackson
Defendant:
Cheryl Shook Brown, District Attorney 174th Court and Judge Hazel Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McDonald (ID 113183) v. Peterson et al
as 5:2022cv03197
Plaintiff:
Sean E. McDonald
Defendant:
Hazel M. Peterson, Sara Beth Collins, Brandon Gitchel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fleming v. Louisville Metro Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2022cv00272
Plaintiff:
Dorion Fleming
Defendant:
Louisville Metro Department of Corrections, Juan Ochoa, Joe Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Petersen
as 22-3087
Petitioner / Appellant:
CHARVELLE LAMONT ROBINSON
Respondent / Appellee:
HAZEL PETERSEN
Savery v. Peterson
as 22-3073
Petitioner / Appellant:
ONETH B. SAVERY
Respondent / Appellee:
HAZEL M. PETERSON
Hazel Stoudemire, Jr. v. Sergeant Thomas
as 22-6280
Plaintiff / Appellant:
HAZEL STOUDEMIRE, JR.
Defendant / Appellee:
SGT. THOMAS, Prison Guard, LIEUTENANT PRIESTER and CAPTAIN LIVINGSTON
Torrence v. Peterson
as 22-3045
Petitioner / Appellant:
CHARLES MELVIN TORRENCE
Respondent / Appellee:
HAZEL PETERSON, Warden, Norton Correctional Facility
Savery (ID 100096) v. Peterson
as 5:2022cv03035
Petitioner:
Oneth B. Savery
Respondent:
Hazel M. Peterson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robinson (ID 85853) v. Petersen
as 5:2022cv03031
Petitioner:
Charvelle Lamont Robinson
Respondent:
Hazel Petersen
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.
