Cases 1 - 10 of 21
Donald Parkell v. Global Tel Link, et al
as 25-2307
Plaintiff:
DONALD D. PARKELL
Defendant:
GLOBAL TEL LINK and STAN TAYLOR
Parkell et al v. Tate et al
as 1:2025cv00621
Plaintiff:
Donald D. Parkell and John Cox
Defendant:
Tate, Ceresini, Chaplain Russell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parkell v. Ceresini et al
as 1:2025cv00593
Plaintiff:
Donald D. Parkell
Defendant:
Ceresini, Stan Taylor and John Doe 1-100
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parkell v. Global Tel Link et al
as 1:2025cv00432
Plaintiff:
Donald D. Parkell
Defendant:
Stan Taylor and Global Tel Link
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kevin Dickens v. Taylor, et al
as 15-1464
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEVIN L. DICKENS
Defendant - Appellee:
STAN TAYLOR, RICHARD E. SEIFERT, ANTHONY RENDINA and others
Kevin Dickens v. Taylor, et al
as 13-2533
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEVIN L. DICKENS
Defendant - Appellee:
STAN TAYLOR, RICHARD E. SEIFERT, ANTHONY RENDINA and others
Shah v. Danberg et al
as 1:2011cv01182
Plaintiff:
Kushal Kalpan Shah
Defendant:
Carl Danberg, Stan Taylor, Mary Miller Johnston and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dale Otis Palmer v. Stan Taylor, et al
as 09-3428
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DALE OTIS PALMER
Defendant - Non-Participating:
STAN TAYLOR, ROBERTA BURNS, M.D., DAVI MESSINGER, M.D. and others
Defendant - Appellee:
THOMAS CARROLL, JAMES WELCH, Medical Director for the Department of Corrections f/k/a John/Jane Doe, IIHOMA CHUKS, R.N. and others
Vurnis Gilis v. Stan Taylor, et al
as 09-3087
Plaintiff - Appellant:
VURNIS GILLIS
Defendant - Appellee:
STAN TAYLOR, PAUL HOWARD, THOMAS CARROLL and others
Vasquez v. Taylor et al
as 1:2009cv00476
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Vasquez
Defendant:
Stan Taylor, Raphael Williams and Oluwemi Awodiya
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.
