Cases 21 - 30 of 225
Lewis v. Stango et al
as 3:2022cv01248
Plaintiff:
Roderick Lewis
Defendant:
Charles Stango, Corneilius Kelly, Frank Iannotti and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lexis v. Micalidzi et al
as 3:2022cv01142
Plaintiff:
Patrick Lexis
Defendant:
Micalidzi, Muniz, Giles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Staton v. Lamont et al
as 3:2022cv00854
Plaintiff:
Terrell Staton
Defendant:
Ned Lamont, John Bowen, Oullette and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rogers v. Lamont et al
as 3:2022cv00820
Plaintiff:
Wayne Rogers
Defendant:
Ned Lamont and Devonia Long
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fielding Kimery v. Dexter Payne, et al
as 22-2301
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Fielding Vaughn Kimery
Defendant / Appellee:
Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections, Marshall Dale Reed, Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Roy Griffin, Medical Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction and others
Williams v. USA
as 4:2022cv03001
Petitioner:
Archie Ned Williams
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Burke v. Lamont et al
as 3:2022cv00475
Plaintiff:
Robert Burke
Defendant:
Ned Lamont, Angel Quiros, Deidre S. Gifford and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Inkel v. Lamont et al
as 3:2022cv00439
Plaintiff:
Phillip Inkel
Defendant:
Ned Lamont and Richard A. Robinson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Beatty et al v. Lamont et al
as 3:2022cv00380
Plaintiff:
Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens and Karl Weissinger
Defendant:
Ned Lamont and William Tong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Sandoval v. Shinn, et al
as 3:2022cv08037
Petitioner:
Ned Alan Sandoval
Respondent:
David Shinn and Arizona Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
