Cases 31 - 40 of 3,002
WOODBERRY v. MICHAEL et al
as 1:2024cv00231
Plaintiff:
MANDRAIL JAMAR WOODBERRY
Defendant:
JUDGE MICHAEL, JOHN BANDLE, M. ODOM and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Norris v. Eason et al
as 4:2024cv00052
Plaintiff:
Fredrick Norris
Defendant:
Jerome L Eason, Knight, Miesha Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WILLIAMS v. KERSEY et al
as 1:2024cv00178
Plaintiff:
DEDRICK L. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
RALPH KERSEY, B.J. KNIGHT, KIM FOY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Happy Stompingbear v. Wendy Kelley, et al
as 24-1011
Plaintiff:
Happy Stompingbear, also known as Chris Ward
Defendant:
Wendy Kelley, former Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Marshall Dale Reed, Chief Deputy Director, ADC, Marvin Evans and others
BARNUM v. KNIGHT et al
as 1:2024cv00158
Plaintiff:
DEANDRE BARNUM
Defendant:
WENDY KNIGHT, HALL and DEPOSKI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Knight v. Callahan et al
as 2:2023cv01687
Plaintiff:
DeWayne D Knight
Defendant:
Doctor Robert Callahan, St Luke's Memorial Hospital of Racine, ABC Insurance Company and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Knight v. Walls
as 1:2024cv00042
Plaintiff:
Carl W Knight
Defendant:
CO Walls
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LEE v. KERSEY et al
as 1:2023cv01065
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ANTRANTRINO LEE
Defendant:
RALPH KERSEY, B.J. KNIGHT, KIM FOYE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hill v. Payne et al
as 4:2023cv01141
Plaintiff:
Adam Hill
Defendant:
Dexter Payne, Dale Reed, William Straughn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
VOYLES v. KNIGHT
as 1:2023cv02139
Petitioner:
LEONARD VOYLES
Respondent:
WENDY KNIGHT
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.
