Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Podkulski v. Hensey et al
as 1:2021cv06480
Plaintiff:
Steve Podkulski
Defendant:
Hensey, Tucco, Batista and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Podkulski v. Doe #1
as 3:2018cv00214
Plaintiff:
Steve Podkulski
Defendant:
John Doe #1 and Jacqueline Lashbrook
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Podkulski v. Niepert
as 3:2018cv00246
Plaintiff:
Steve Podkulski
Defendant:
Counselor Niepert
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Podkulski v. Trost et al
as 3:2017cv01284
Plaintiff:
Steve Podkulski
Defendant:
Dr. Trost, Warden Butler, Warden Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Podkulski v. Miles et al
as 1:2017cv08629
Plaintiff:
Steve Podkulski
Defendant:
Warden Miles, Rozul Emanual, Jane Doe 1 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Podkulski v. Dart et al
as 1:2017cv05660
Plaintiff:
Steve Podkulski
Defendant:
Tom Dart, Elia Disavino, Paul and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Podkulski v. Chairperson PRB et al
as 1:2016cv10726
Petitioner:
Steve Podkulski
Respondent:
Chairperson PRB
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Steve Podkulski v. Terry Williams, et al
as 15-1713
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STEVE PODKULSKI
Defendant - Appellee:
TERRY WILLIAMS, Warden, SALVADOR A. GODINEZ, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, OFFICER HARRINGTON and others
Podkulski v. Turcotte, et al
as 15-1251
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STEVE PODKULSKI
Defendant - Appellee:
BRIAN TURCOTTE, Corrections Officer, TODD GORDON, Sergeant, formerly known as FNU Gordon, KRISTIN BALLES, Sergeant, formerly known as FNU Ballis and others
Defendant:
JAMES HUJSAK, #171 Officer, JAMES M. O'MARA, Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, Superintendent and FNU ROBINSON, Lieutenant
Podkulski v. Williams et al
as 1:2014cv10104
Plaintiff:
Steve Podkulski
Defendant:
Terry Williams, Ada Johnson, Officer Narrington 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.
