Cases 11 - 20 of 225
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)
Jones v. The Warden of OBCC
as 1:2023cv08295
Petitioner:
Rafael Arden Jones
Respondent:
The Warden of OBCC and Ned McCormack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
SMITH v. BEASLEY
as 7:2023cv00061
Plaintiff:
ROY MANDELL SMITH
Defendant:
Lt AARON KIRK, Supervisor KEVIN CONNOLLY, NED M MIKULA and others
Respondent:
Warden JACOB BEASLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Washington v. Galbraith et al
as 1:2023cv01261
Plaintiff:
Khalel J Washington
Defendant:
Daniel Galbraith, Chris Jidney, Ned Mirkobic and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Wang v. Quiros et al
as 3:2023cv00571
Plaintiff:
Lishan Wang
Defendant:
Angel Quiros, Ned Lamont, Reis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moon v. Boyd, et al
as 1:2023cv00071
Plaintiff:
Darnell Wesly Moon
Defendant:
Ned Boyd, Patrick James, Nicole Green and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Staton v. Lamont
as 23-99
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Terrell Staton
Defendant / Appellee:
Ned Lamont, C/O John Bowen, Lt. Oullette and others
Defendant:
Scanning Program - Robinson
Schlosser v. Lamont et al
as 3:2022cv01620
Petitioner:
Jeffrey Schlosser
Defendant:
William Tong
Respondent:
Ned Lamont
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Guerra v. Benzel et al
as 2:2022cv01365
Plaintiff:
Ned Guerra
Defendant:
Jason Benzel, Brian Greff and Anya Pusich
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Quint v. Lamont et al
as 3:2022cv01263
Plaintiff:
Mr. Richard R. Quint and Richard R. Quint
Defendant:
Lamont, Quiros, Martin 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.
