Cases 1 - 10 of 134
PATTERSON v. OPTUMRX, INC.
as 1:2024cv00689
Plaintiff:
Brad Patterson
Defendant:
OptumRX, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
PRATHER v. HASSLER et al
as 2:2024cv00142
Plaintiff:
REGINALD PRATHER
Defendant:
NATHAN HASSLER, JOHN MONTGOMERY, PATTERSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PATTERSON v. 360CONNECT, LLC
as 1:2024cv00562
Plaintiff:
Brad Patterson
Defendant:
360Connect, LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
ICENOGLE et al v. AMOS et al
as 1:2024cv00312
Plaintiff:
Judith Icenogle, JOHN PATTERSON and A. G.
Defendant:
Kyle Amos and OSTLUND A SERVICE COMPANY, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
PATTERSON v. I.D.O.C et al
as 1:2024cv00062
Plaintiff:
AARON PATTERSON
Defendant:
I.D.O.C, CENTURION MEDICAL GROUP, J. HADLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PATTERSON v. FORSTEAL et al
as 1:2023cv02095
Plaintiff:
RODERICK STANDELL PATTERSON
Defendant:
KERRY J. FORSTEAL, MARION COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, ALLYSON HUMPHREY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Diehl et al v. Landmark Recovery of Carmel LLC
as 3:2023cv00863
Plaintiff:
Suzanne Diehl, Tylor Young, April McElroy and others
Defendant:
Landmark Recovery of Carmel LLC
Not Classified By Court:
Richard F McDevitt
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
KRIPPS et al v. PATTERSON et al
as 3:2023cv00133
Plaintiff:
MARY ETTA KRIPPS and C. B.
Defendant:
JOSH PATTERSON and JOHN DOE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00215
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01028
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
