Cases 11 - 20 of 21
HUGHES v. HANKS
as 1:2010cv00876
Respondent:
CRAIG A. HANKS
Petitioner:
MARK S. HUGHES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HUGHES v. HANKS
as 1:2010cv00668
Respondent:
CRAIG A. HANKS
Petitioner:
MARK S. HUGHES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HUGHES v. NEW CASTLE CORR. FACILITY SUPERINTENDANT
as 1:2010cv00551
Petitioner:
MARK S. HUGHES
Respondent:
NEW CASTLE CORR. FACILITY SUPERINTENDANT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HUGHES et al v. BUSS et al
as 1:2009cv01322
Plaintiff:
MARK S. HUGHES, LAWRENCE BETHEA, COREY HABEGGER and others
Defendant:
EDWIN G. BUSS, KELLEY KURTZ, D. HENSHAW and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HUGHES v. WRIGLEY
as 1:2009cv00601
Petitioner:
MARK S. HUGHES
Respondent:
JEFF WRIGLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HUGHES v. BUSS et al
as 1:2009cv00149
Plaintiff:
MARK S. HUGHES
Defendant:
ED BUSS, TONY HINES, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICE COMMISSION (IPAS) and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
HUGHES v. COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPT. CORRETION et al
as 1:2009cv00050
Plaintiff:
MARK S. HUGHES
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPT. CORRETION, EDWARD BUSS and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jonathan Riches v. Harold McCoy
as 08-7805
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JONATHAN LEE RICHES
Defendant - Appellee:
HAROLD E. MCCOY, MARK S. HUGHES, LOUIS T. RECHT and others
Jonathan Riches v. Harold McCoy
as 08-6705
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JONATHAN LEE RICHES
Defendant - Appellee:
HAROLD E. MCCOY, MARK S. HUGHES, LOUIS T. RECHT and others
Riches v. McCoy et al
as 6:2008cv00679
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Lee Riches
Defendant:
Harold E McCoy and Mark S Hughes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, Federal Filers (Bivens)
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.
