Cases 1 - 10 of 42
Jackson v. Gomez et al
as 1:2024cv01157
Plaintiff:
Rasheem Jackson
Defendant:
. Gomez, . Tate, . Stellman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Snowden v. USA
as 3:2024cv01061
Petitioner:
Donald V. Snowden
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
RICHARDSON v. SNOWDEN et al
as 2:2024cv00056
Plaintiff:
TREY RICHARDSON
Defendant:
SARAH SNOWDEN, BRANDY LEEK, ANTHONY BONDS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JOHNSON v. PRETORIUS
as 2:2023cv00570
Plaintiff:
JEREMY LEE JOHNSON
Defendant:
TRICIA PRETORIUS, DUSHAW ZATECKY, SARAH SNOWDEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HARTSOCK v. SNOWDEN et al
as 2:2023cv00477
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH HARTSOCK
Defendant:
SARAH SNOWDEN, ROBERT BUPREY, BRANDY LEEK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
EDWARDS v. SNOWDEN et al
as 2:2023cv00436
Plaintiff:
BARRY EDWARDS
Defendant:
SARAH SNOWDEN, CENTURION, BRANDY LEEK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Snowden v. AFAM Concept, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv06585
Plaintiff:
Tracey Snowden
Defendant:
AFAM Concept, Inc. d/b/a JF Labs, Inc., Avlon Industries, Godrej SON Holdings, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
MCCLURE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2023cv00414
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER MCCLURE
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHRISTINA REAGLE, JAMES BASINGER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Snowden v. Aramark Management, LLC
as 1:2023cv04735
Plaintiff:
Jaime Snowden
Defendant:
Aramark Management, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
CLARK v. SNOWDEN
as 1:2023cv00572
Plaintiff:
ROBERT WAYNE CLARK
Defendant:
ERIC SNOWDEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
