Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Rhode Island Department of Corrections, et al v. Paiva
as 23-1919
Petitioner / Appellant:
RICHARD LEE PAIVA
Petitioner:
NICHOLAS A. PALMIGIANO, WILLIAM J. O'BRIEN, JOHN F. PIERCE and others
Plaintiff:
ERIC DAY, WILLIAM THOMAS, DANIEL SMITH and others
Defendant / Appellee:
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and STATE OF RI
Interested Party:
KENNETH WILSON, CHRISTOPHER HADLEY, NORMAN WHEELER and others
Paiva v. Coyne-Fague, et al
as 21-1746
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RICHARD LEE PAIVA
Defendant / Appellee:
PATRICIA ANNE COYNE-FAGUE, individually and in her Official Capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections and RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Paiva v. Grande, et al
as 21-1504
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RICHARD LEE PAIVA
Defendant / Appellee:
KAREN GRANDE, individually and in her official capacity as a doctor at RIDOC, PAULINE MARCUSSEN, individually and in her official capacity as a doctor at RIDOC and JUSTIN BERK, individually and in his official capacity as a doctor at RIDOC
Paiva v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2020cv00499
Defendant:
Rui Diniz, Rhode Island Department of Corrections, Pauline Marcussen and others
Plaintiff:
Richard Lee Paiva
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Paiva v. Coyne-Fague et al
as 1:2020cv00250
Defendant:
Rhode Island Department of Corrections and Particia Coyne-Fague
Plaintiff:
Richard Lee Paiva
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Paiva v. Wall et al
as 1:2016cv00267
Plaintiff:
Richard Lee Paiva
Defendant:
Ashbel T. Wall, Matthew Kettle, William Galligan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Paiva v. Vohr et al
as 1:2015cv00140
Plaintiff:
Richard Lee Paiva
Defendant:
Fred Vohr, Louis Cerbo, Edward Blanchette and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Paiva v. Wall, et al
as 1:2015cv00116
Plaintiff:
Richard Lee Paiva
Defendant:
Ashbel Wall, James Weeden, Audra Russo 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.
