Cases 11 - 20 of 157
McCarthy v. Florey et al
as 1:2022cv23490
Plaintiff:
John J. McCarthy
Defendant:
Valery Florey and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
McCarthy v. Doe et al
as 1:2022cv23310
Plaintiff:
John J. McCarthy
Defendant:
Warden John Doe, Agents John Doe and New Haven Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
McCarthy v. Fallon et al
as 8:2022cv02401
Plaintiff:
John J. McCarthy
Defendant:
Doctor Fallon, Jamie Barton, Valery Flory and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCarthy v. Florence et al
as 8:2022cv02037
Plaintiff:
John J. McCarthy
Defendant:
Janice Florence, Doctor Mi Fallon, Doctor James Verola and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCarthy v. Doe et al (Sarasota County)
as 8:2022cv02038
Petitioner:
John J. McCarthy
Respondent:
John Does and Donelle Crank Longo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McCarthy v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
as 8:2022cv01657
Petitioner:
John J. McCarthy
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Warren Giddings v. Probation Officers 1 & 2
as 21-7610
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WARREN MATTHEW GIDDINGS
Defendant / Appellee:
PROBATION OFFICERS 1 & 2, JOHN J. MCCARTHY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND and others
Giddings v. Probation Officer 1 & 2 et al
as 1:2021cv02458
Plaintiff:
Warren Matthew Giddings
Defendant:
Probation Officer 1 & 2, John J. McCarthy, Montgomery County, Maryland and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
McCarthy v. Doe et al
as 3:2021cv00749
Petitioner:
John J. McCarthy
Defendant:
John Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
McCarthy v. Norton et al
as 3:2021cv00198
Defendant:
John Doe, Norton, Maria D. Summer and others
Plaintiff:
John J. McCarthy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
