Cases 1 - 9 of 9
David Getzen v. David Shinn, et al
as 21-16870
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID GETZEN
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, Director, Director at Arizona Dept of Corrections, MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General and BEN ARMSTRONG, Appellee Judge
Kilian Hale v. David Shinn, et al
as 21-16794
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KILIAN GREGOIRE HALE
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, ADOC Central Office, GLENN PACHECO, Warden of ASPC, Tucson Complex, J. MARTINEZ, Deputy Warden of ASPC, Tucson, Whetstone Unit and others
Paul Isaacson, et al v. Mark Brnovich, et al
as 21-16711
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL A. ISAACSON, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients, ERIC M. REUSS, M.D., M.P.H,; on behalf of himself and his patients, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC., Arizona Section and others
Defendant / Appellee:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General of Arizona, in his official capacity, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, DON HERRINGTON, Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services and others
Defendant:
MICHAEL B. WHITING, County Attorney for Apache County, in his official capacity, BRIAN M. MCINTYRE, County Attorney for Cochise County, in his official capacity, WILLIAM PATRICK RING, County Attorney for Coconino County, in his official capacity and others
Amicus Curiae:
STATE OF MISSOURI, STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OR ARKANSAS, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF KANSAS, STATE OF IDAHO, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF MONTANA, STATE OF NEBRASKA, STATE OF OHIO, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE
Paul Isaacson, et al v. Mark Brnovich, et al
as 21-16645
Plaintiff / Appellee:
PAUL A. ISAACSON, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients, ERIC M. REUSS, M.D., M.P.H,; on behalf of himself and his patients, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC., Arizona Section and others
Defendant / Appellant:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General of Arizona, in his official capacity, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, DON HERRINGTON, Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services and others
Defendant:
MICHAEL B. WHITING, County Attorney for Apache County, in his official capacity, BRIAN M. MCINTYRE, County Attorney for Cochise County, in his official capacity, WILLIAM PATRICK RING, County Attorney for Coconino County, in his official capacity and others
Amicus Curiae:
STATE OF MISSOURI, STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OR ARKANSAS, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF KANSAS, STATE OF IDAHO, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF MONTANA, STATE OF NEBRASKA, STATE OF OHIO, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE
Jimmy Woods v. State of Arizona, et al
as 21-15032
Defendant / Appellee:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General of the State of Arizona and STATE OF ARIZONA
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JIMMY D. WOODS
Brittian Young v. Arizona Department of Environm, et al
as 20-17217
Defendant / Appellee:
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director for ADOC, CAMILLE D. BIBLES, U.S. District Judge, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Named as State of Arizona - Arizona Department of Corrections and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRITTIAN WILLIE YOUNG
Alfredo Quijada v. David Shinn, et al
as 20-71971
Petitioner:
ALFREDO QUIJADA
Respondent:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General of the State of Arizona and DAVID SHINN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
Darquine Wilson v. Doug Ducey, et al
as 20-16228
Respondent / Appellee:
DOUG DUCEY, Executive Officer of the State of Arizona, SUSAN BRNOVICH, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge and MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General for the State of Arizona
Petitioner / Appellant:
DARQUINE WILSON
Bradley Schwartz v. David Shinn, et al
as 19-72746
Respondent:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General, State of Arizona and DAVID SHINN, Warden, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
Petitioner:
BRADLEY ALAN SCHWARTZ
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.
