Cases 1 - 10 of 229
Whibbey v. Aventiv Technologies et al
as 1:2025cv03035
Plaintiff:
Paul Whibbey
Defendant:
Aventiv Technologies, Securus Technologies, State of Georgia and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1)Removal from State Court - Civil Rights
Whibbey v. Aventiv Technologies et al
as 1:2025cv02897
Plaintiff:
Paul Whibbey
Defendant:
Aventiv Technologies, Securus Technologies, State of Georgia and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1)Removal from State Court - Civil Rights
Timmons v. Aventiv Corporation et al
as 9:2025cv00663
Plaintiff:
Richard Timmons
Defendant:
Aventiv Corporation, Jpay Incorporated Dell Industries, Securus Technologies and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WebSock Global Strategies LLC v. Securus Technologies, LLC
as 2:2025cv00571
Plaintiff:
WebSock Global Strategies LLC
Defendant:
Securus Technologies, LLC
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
William Truesdale v. Securus Technologies, et al
as 25-11539
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM JAMES TRUESDALE
Defendant:
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, JPAY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Taylor v. Securus Technologies Inc.
as 25-1119
Plaintiff:
DAIJUAN T. TAYLOR
Defendant:
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, MAURINDA ALLEN, ROLANDO ALLEN and others
(PC) Soto v. Aramark et al
as 2:2025cv01066
Defendant:
Aramark, Securus Technologies and Sacramento County Jail
Plaintiff:
William Soto
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cope v. Securus Technologies, L.L.C. et al
as 5:2025cv00042
Plaintiff:
William Douglas Cope, Jr.
Defendant:
Securus Technologies, L.L.C., Kentucky Dept. of Corrections, Kentucky State Pennitentuary and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HOGAN v. HANCOCK STATE PRISON et al.
as 5:2025cv00122
Plaintiff:
RICKY LAMAR HOGAN
Defendant:
HANCOCK STATE PRISON, WARDEN GEORGE IVEY, JR, KATRINA D FORD and others
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.
