Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Kirkland v. SOCF et al
as 2:2026cv01053
Plaintiff:
Elliott L Kirkland
Defendant:
SOCF and TOCI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Trout v. SOCF/LECI Medial Supervisors et al
as 2:2026cv00445
Plaintiff:
David Trout
Defendant:
SOCF/LECI Medial Supervisors and Dr. Conlee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Hardison v. Ewing et al
as 1:2025cv00399
Plaintiff:
Corey Hardison
Defendant:
Ethel Ewing, C/O Leaisure and SOCF Warden
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thompson v. Warden SOCF et al
as 2:2024cv03439
Defendant:
Jane & John Does and Warden SOCF
Plaintiff:
Eric Lamont Thompson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Terry Pullen, Jr. v. SOCF Mail Room, et al
as 19-4173
Defendant / Appellee:
JAMES WHITMAN, RACHELLE KEZEE, AARON SATTERFIELD and others
Defendant:
SOCF MAIL ROOM
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TERRY TYRONE PULLEN, JR.
Hunter v. Eaches et al
as 1:2019cv00123
Defendant:
Jeremy Eaches, L Mahlman, Captain-Mr. Whitman and others
Plaintiff:
Trevvaun Hunter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pullen v. SOCF Mail Room et al
as 1:2017cv00017
Plaintiff:
Terry Tyrone Pullen, Jr
Defendant:
SOCF Mail Room, Whitman, Jane Doe #1 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James Sudberry v. Warden Corr Reception Ctr, et al
as 16-4685
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES SUDBERRY
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN CORRECTIONAL RECEPTION CENTER, CAPTAIN BELL and MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR, SOCF
David Hill v. OH Dept of Rehabilitation, et al
as 16-3667
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID TYRONE HILL
Defendant - Appellee:
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, D. BRADLEY, SOCF J3N 41-630 Range, SHANNON BEAR, (SOCF) Corrections Counselor and others
Easley v. Judd et al
as 1:2014cv00100
Plaintiff:
David Easley
Defendant:
Dana Judd, Donald Morgan, Kathy Burns 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.
