Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Gibbs v. Utilization Review Committee
as 24-891
Plaintiff:
DAVID GIBBS
Defendant:
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FEDUS, Dr., PILLAI, Dr. and others
Ambrose v. Mulligan
as 23-7173
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARK AMBROSE
Defendant / Appellee:
Dr. SYED J. NAQVI, Utilization Review Committee (URC), MONICA FARINELLI, Utilization Review Committee (URC), RICARDO RUIZ, Utilization Review Committee (URC) and others
Defendant:
WILLIAM MULLIGAN, Connecticut State Correctional Facility Warden
Gibbs v. Utilization Review Committee et al
as 3:2020cv01119
Defendant:
Tawana Furtique, Lightner, Mazzocca and others
Plaintiff:
David Gibbs
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Camera v. Semple et al
as 3:2018cv01595
Plaintiff:
Patrick Camera
Defendant:
Cary Freston, Scott Semple, Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris v. Figura et al
as 3:2017cv01614
Plaintiff:
Leroy Harris
Defendant:
Figura, Knight, Jeff and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Little v. Murphy
as 16-3610
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Jermaine Little
Defendant - Appellee:
Peter J. Murphy, Individual Capacity, Maldonado, Lt., Individual Capacity, Nunez, Lt., Individual Capacity and others
Melvin v. Connecticut et al
as 3:2016cv00537
Plaintiff:
Martin Melvin
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, Department of Corrections, Board of Pardons & Paroles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tam v. LaFrance
as 14-755
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Vu Tam
Defendant - Appellee:
Barber LaFrance, Medical Supervisor, Utilization Review Committee, Names Unknown, Ruiz, Doctor at MacDougall Walker Correctional Institution, Utilization Review Committee and others
Tam v. LaFrance et al
as 3:2012cv01019
Plaintiff:
Vu Tam
Defendant:
Barber LaFrance and Utilization Review Committee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wortham v. Lantz et al
as 3:2010cv01127
Plaintiff:
Terrance T. Wortham
Defendant:
Theresa Lantz, Steven J. Plurde, Peter Murphy 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.
