Cases 1 - 10 of 605
Timothy Mayberry v. Ron Neal, et al
as 25-1219
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY M. MAYBERRY
Defendant:
RON NEAL, In his individual and official capacity as Warden of Indiana State Prison, DAVID LIEBEL, In his individual and official capacity as Religious Authority for IDOC, THERESA JOHNSON, in her individual and official capacity as Aramark Supervisor, also known as JOHNSON and others
Gregory v. Indiana State Prison et al
as 3:2025cv00129
Plaintiff:
Tyshaun Lamar Gregory
Defendant:
Indiana State Prison, Ron Neal and Dawn Buss
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WHITE v. INDIANA STATE PRISON et al
as 1:2025cv00241
Plaintiff:
DAVID MICHAEL WHITE, JR.
Defendant:
INDIANA STATE PRISON, RON NEAL, POWERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Woods v. Riaz et al
as 3:2025cv00127
Plaintiff:
Martez Roseman Woods
Defendant:
Riaz, Ron Neal and Mark Newkirk
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ramon v. Rokita et al
as 3:2025cv00094
Plaintiff:
Gilbert Ramon
Defendant:
Thadeuss Rokita, Eric Holecomb, Ron Neal and others
Unknown:
INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Crain v. Reagle et al
as 3:2025cv00095
Plaintiff:
Durell T Crain
Defendant:
Christina Reagle, Jack Hendrix, Deborah Reasoner and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Taylor v. Neal et al
as 3:2025cv00064
Plaintiff:
Starlene G Taylor and Gregory Taylor
Defendant:
Ron Neal, Pam Banes, Utesch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Charles Justise, Sr. v. Ron Neal
as 25-1032
Petitioner:
CHARLES E. JUSTISE, SR.
Respondent:
RON NEAL
Jent v. Neal

as 3:2025cv00022
Plaintiff:
Randy Lee Jent and Randy L Jent
Unknown:
INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Defendant:
Ron Neal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.