Cases 1 - 10 of 26
WALLACE v. IRWIN et al
as 3:2023cv00269
Plaintiff:
SHAWN WALLACE
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDANT RANDY IRWIN, DEPUTY J. BLICHA, LT. S. KOPCHICK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Ortiz v. Zborovancik et al
as 3:2023cv00248
Petitioner:
Andy Ortiz
Respondent:
BM. Zborovancik, LIEUTENANT JOHN DOE, DAN CARO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
JOHNSON v. WALKER et al
as 1:2023cv00251
Plaintiff:
TRAVON JOHNSON
Defendant:
LIEUTENANT J. C. WALKER and J. DUPONT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Ortiz v. Zborovancik et al
as 3:2023cv01345
Plaintiff:
Andy Ortiz
Defendant:
BM. Zborovancik, John Doe, Dan Caro and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DuPonte v. Wall et al
as 1:2017cv00397
Plaintiff:
Richard J. DuPonte, II
Defendant:
Ashbel T. Wall, Mathew Kettle, Jeffrey Aceto and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
MCCULLOUGH v. DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al
as 1:2017cv01563
Plaintiff:
ROBERT MCCULLOUGH
Defendant:
DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC. , LAMMOT J. DUPONT , MICHAEL A. COKE and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
SIMMONS v. GIMORE et al
as 2:2017cv00996
Plaintiff:
AUGUSTUS SIMMONS
Defendant:
R. GILMORE, M. ZAKEN, LEGGET and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LAWRENCE v. DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al
as 1:2017cv01465
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM LAWRENCE
Defendant:
DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC., LAMMOT J. DUPONT, MICHAEL A. COKE and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
CANCHOLA v. DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al
as 1:2017cv01481
Plaintiff:
DANIEL CANCHOLA
Defendant:
DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC., LAMMOT J. DUPONT, MICHAEL A. COKE and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
Lawrence v. Dupont Fabros Technology, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv02042
Plaintiff:
William Lawrence
Defendant:
Dupont Fabros Technology, Inc., Lammott J Dupont, Michael A. Coke and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
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.
