Cases 1 - 10 of 224
Johnson v. State of Connecticut et al
as 3:2024cv00728
Plaintiff:
Gregory Johnson
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, Cheyanne Clark, Mark Shepherd and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hasan v. Quiros et al
as 3:2024cv00197
Plaintiff:
Amin Hasan
Defendant:
Angel Quiros and Ned McCormick
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bland v. Swanson Services Corporation, et al
as 6:2023cv02466
Plaintiff:
Ned Gerome Bland, Jr.
Defendant:
Swanson Services Corporation, Rick Wells and Trinity Services Group
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Armour v. Lamont
as 3:2023cv01606
Plaintiff:
Shaquan L Armour
Defendant:
Ned Lamont
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Monroe v. Lamont et al
as 3:2023cv01584
Plaintiff:
Timothy C. Monroe
Defendant:
Ned Lamont and Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. McCormack
as 1:2023cv10522
Petitioner:
Rafael Arden Jones
Respondent:
Ned McCormack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Purdy v. James et al
as 0:2023cv03148
Petitioner:
Jeffrey Colin Purdy
Respondent:
Kendal James, Ned G. Wohlman and Jordan DePonty
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
McNulty, Ned v. Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center
as 3:2023cv00676
Plaintiff:
Ned Charles McNulty, II
Defendant:
Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jokhoo v. Wohlman et al
as 0:2023cv03022
Petitioner:
Khemall Jokhoo
Respondent:
Ned G. Wohlman, Kendall James, Colette Peters and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jones v. McCormack
as 1:2023cv08296
Plaintiff:
Rafael Arden Jones
Defendant:
Ned McCormack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
