Cases 11 - 20 of 39
Fredricks v. Sheerwood
as 1:2022cv10323
Plaintiff:
Nigel Fredricks
Defendant:
Mary K. Sheerwood
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fredricks v. John Doe "C.O."
as 1:2022cv10092
Plaintiff:
Nigel Fredricks
Defendant:
John Doe "C.O."
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fredericks v. Dental Staff John Doe
as 9:2022cv01260
Plaintiff:
Nigel Fredericks and Nigel Fredricks
Defendant:
Dental Staff John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fredricks v. Whittingham
as 22-2945
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Nigel Fredricks
Defendant / Appellee:
Phillip Whittingham
Fredricks v. Doe
as 22-2927
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Nigel Fredricks
Defendant / Appellee:
Captain John Doe, Jane Doe, Correction Officer(s) and John Doe, Correction Officer(s)
Fredricks v. Doe
as 22-2870
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Nigel Fredricks
Defendant / Appellee:
Captain John Doe, Jane Doe, Correction Officer(s) and John Doe, Correction Officer(s)
Fredericks v. Borden
as 22-2686
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Nigel Fredericks, AKA Nigel Fredricks
Defendant / Appellee:
B. Borden, Correction Officer; Franklin Correctional Facility
Defendant:
Darwin LaClair, Superintendent; Franklin Correctional Facility, John Doe (A), Sgt.; Franklin Correctional Facility, John Doe (0), Sgt; Franklin Correctional Facility and others
Fredricks v. Doe et al
as 1:2022cv07661
Plaintiff:
Nigel Fredricks
Defendant:
Captain John Doe, Jane Doe and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fredricks v. Renze
as 1:2022cv07274
Plaintiff:
Nigel Fredricks
Defendant:
Warden Renze
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fredericks v. Sergeant John Doe
as 22-1712
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Nigel V. Fredericks, AKA Nigel Fredricks
Defendant / Appellee:
Correctional Officer John Doe, Mental Health Doctor Jane Doe, Mental Health Nurse Jane Doe and others
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.
