Cases 91 - 100 of 99,583
Ladd v. USA
as 1:2024cv00701
Petitioner:
Brad R. Ladd
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Castro-Mota v. Bobby et al.
as 4:2024cv00697
Plaintiff:
Santos Castro-Mota
Defendant:
Warden David Bobby, Cousel Master, Counsel Haad and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hailey v. Logan County Detention Center et al
as 1:2024cv00060
Plaintiff:
William T. Hailey
Defendant:
Logan County Detention Center, Chief Trimmer and Capt. Timothy Burchett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Vaughn v. Maness et al
as 5:2024cv00067
Plaintiff:
Clarence Vaughn
Defendant:
Blake Maness, John Michael Hill, David Clark and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McDowell v. Plymouth Township Police Department et al
as 2:2024cv11029
Plaintiff:
Danny Eugene McDowell
Defendant:
Plymouth Township Police Department, Plymouth Township Police Department, Commissioner of, Plymouth Township Police Department, Chief of and others
Bushner v. Kerner et al
as 2:2024cv01861
Plaintiff:
Raymond D. Bushner
Defendant:
Investigator Eric Kerner, Investigator John/Jane Tabor, Captain John/Jane Berry and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Freeman v. Warden Belmont Correctional Institution
as 2:2024cv01862
Petitioner:
Maurice Freeman
Respondent:
Warden Belmont Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rollins v. Phillips et al
as 3:2024cv00486
Plaintiff:
Steve Rollins
Defendant:
Amber L. Phillips and John Doe #1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ervin v. Barnes et al
as 3:2024cv00487
Plaintiff:
Jackie Darrell Ervin
Defendant:
Brandon Barnes, Jamison Marriman, Dillian Seibers and others
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.
