Cases 1 - 10 of 37
Morice v. Carroll et al
as 2:2015cv01026
Plaintiff:
Natchez Morice
Defendant:
Thomas L. Carroll and Amilynne Carroll
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
James Biggins v. Carl Danberg, et al
as 13-1498
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant:
CARL C. DANBERG, THOMAS L. CARROLL, MIKE DELOY and others
Not Party:
DR. CLAUDIA PARKER
James Biggins v. Carl Danberg
as 12-1411
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant - Appellee:
CARL C. DANBERG, THOMAS L. CARROLL, MIKE DELOY and others
In re: Edward Gibbs, Jr.
as 11-3486
Petitioner:
In re: EDWARD J. GIBBS, JR.
Respondent:
THOMAS L. CARROLL and ATTY GEN DE
Robert Jackson, III v. Carl Danberg, et al
as 11-9002
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT W. JACKSON, III
Defendant - Appellee:
THOMAS L. CARROLL, Warden Delaware Correctional Center, CARL C. DANBERG, PAUL HOWARD, Bureau Chief Delaware Bureau of Prisons and others
Robert Jackson, III v. Carl Danberg, et al
as 11-9000
Plaintiff - Appellee:
ROBERT W. JACKSON, III
Defendant - Appellant:
CARL C. DANBERG, Commissioner, Delaware Department of Correction, THOMAS L. CARROLL, Warden Delaware Correctional Center, PAUL HOWARD, Bureau Chief, Delaware Bureau of Prisons and others
Biggins v. Green et al
as 1:2011cv00473
Plaintiff:
James Arthur Biggins
Defendant:
Green, Kiesser, Telb and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Biggins v. Gile et al
as 1:2011cv00365
Plaintiff:
James Arthur Biggins
Defendant:
George Gile, Mark D. Daum, Marcili Rispoli and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James Biggins v. Jack Markell, et al
as 11-1560
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant - Appellee:
JOSEPH W. BOOTH, JACK MARKELL, CARL C. DANBERG and others
Debtor - Appellee:
LINCOLN D. WILLIS
Ivan Mendez v. Thomas Carroll, et al
as 11-1149
Plaintiff - Appellant:
IVAN L. MENDEZ
Defendant - Appellee:
THOMAS L. CARROLL and ATTY GEN DE
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.
