Cases 1 - 4 of 4
Kenneth Sorensen v. John Wolfe
as 17-7152
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KENNETH SORENSEN
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN WOLFE, is the Warden of Jessup Correctional Institution, S PRIGGS, is a Case Manager of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections, LT. BARNETT, is a Correctional Officer and others
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, is the Inspector General of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections, JOHN DOE, is the Director of the State of Maryland for the Division of Corrections, JOHN DOE, is the Unit Chief of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections and others
Kenneth Sorensen v. John Wolfe
as 16-7549
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KENNETH SORENSEN
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN WOLFE, is the Warden of Jessup Correctional Institution, S PRIGGS, is a Case Manager of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections, LT. BARNETT, is a Correctional Officer and others
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, is the Inspector General of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections, JOHN DOE, is the Director of the State of Maryland for the Division of Corrections, JOHN DOE, is the Unit Chief of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections and others
Sorensen v. Bishop et al
as 8:2015cv03041
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Sorensen
Defendant:
Frank B. Bishop, Jr., Richard J. Graham, Jr., Michael P. Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Benny Iko v. Mark Raley
as 07-7569
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BENNY IKO, Personal representative of the Estate of Ifeanyi A. Iko, LOREEN JONES, as parent and next friend of her minor son, BI and CHRISTINE IKO
Intervenor/Plaintiff:
THE BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY, a/k/a Sun
Defendant - Appellant:
JAMES SHREVE, Lieutenant, BRIAN CLISE, Correctional Officer, LYN DETRICK, Correction Officer and others
Defendant:
JON P. GALLEY, Warden, CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS JOHN DOES I THROUGH VI, WESTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, MICHAEL JACOBS, Correction Lieutenant 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.
