Cases 11 - 20 of 24
RICE v. ROGERS
as 1:2022cv00335
Plaintiff:
NATHANIEL DANTE RICE
Defendant:
DANNY ROGERS, ARAMARK, INC., WELL PATH, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RICE v. AUTEN et al
as 1:2022cv00153
Plaintiff:
NATHANIEL DANTE RICE
Defendant:
KEVIN AUTEN, JOHN DOE #2, K-9 OFFICER JOHN DOE #3 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Harris v. Pasquotank Correctional Institution et al
as 5:2021ct03236
Plaintiff:
Anthony L. Harris
Defendant:
Pasquotank Correctional Institution, Sgt. Morris, A. Adams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NEAL v. ALAMANCE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al
as 1:2021cv00225
Defendant:
ALAMANCE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, JANE DOE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN DOE and others
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER NEAL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Griffin v. Daves et al
as 5:2019ct03040
Defendant:
Officer John Doe and Sergeant Daves
Plaintiff:
Matthew James Griffin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Frost v. Young et al
as 5:2011ct03273
Plaintiff:
Jennifer Jaye Frost
Defendant:
J. P. Young, Arthur F Beeler, BOP Officer John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Frost v. Young et al
as 5:2011cv00761
Plaintiff:
Jennifer Jaye Frost
Defendant:
J. P. Young, Arthur F Beeler, BOP Officer John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Case Opened in Error
as 5:2011cv00760
Defendant:
J P Young, Arthur F Beeler, BOP Officer Richard Roe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rice v. Officer John Doe et al
as 5:2011ct03218
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel D. Rice
Defendant:
Officer John Doe and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Banks v. Beaufort County et al
as 5:2011ct03083
Plaintiff:
Scottie McKinley Banks
Defendant:
North Carolina Beaufort County , Beaufort County Sheriff R. Alan Jordan , Phillip Shanks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
