Cases 1 - 10 of 141
GURNEY v. JOYCE
as 2:2024cv00262
Plaintiff:
STEPHEN C GURNEY
Defendant:
KEVIN J JOYCE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ENWONWU v. JOYCE
as 2:2024cv00320
Unknown:
MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL - HABEAS CASES
Petitioner:
FRANCIS ENWONWU
Respondent:
KEVIN JOYCE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
ROSS v. PIKE et al
as 1:2024cv00314
Defendant:
JOSHUA SOUCY, CODY HOUSTON, ADMINISTRATOR PIKE and others
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BISSONETTE v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF KEVIN JOYCE et al
as 2:2024cv00251
Defendant:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF KEVIN JOYCE, MATTHEW GLAZER, EDIE WOODWARD and others
Plaintiff:
NICOLE BISSONETTE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
ROSS v. WALKER et al
as 1:2024cv00230
Defendant:
ASHLEY HADAM, PROSECUTOR MCCORMACK, SCOTT LEE ROSS and others
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ROSS v. ROSS et al
as 1:2024cv00244
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
MIKE LEE ROSS and SCOTT LEE ROSS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ROSS v. WALKER et al
as 1:2024cv00277
Defendant:
JOHN C NIVISON, BRYCE TORRENSON, ANDREW MCCORMACK and others
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ROSS v. WOODCOCK et al
as 1:2024cv00110
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
JUDGE WOODCOCK, ANDREW MCCORMACK, SCOTT KELLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROSS v. WOODCOCK et al
as 1:2024cv00013
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
JUDGE WOODCOCK, MCCORMACK, BRYCE TURGENSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROSS v. PIKE et al
as 1:2024cv00016
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
PIKE, D GRAY, JAQUES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
