US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 10,349
ADAN v. DOE
as 5:2024cv00114
Petitioner:
SALEEBAN ISSE ADAN
Respondent:
JOHN AND OR JANE DOE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
ADAN v. DOE
as 5:2024cv00115
Plaintiff:
SALEEBAN ISSE ADAN
Defendant:
JOHN OR JANE DOE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
HULING v. USA
as 4:2024cv00050
Petitioner:
CURTIS D HULING
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00049
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
LEE v. ODOM
as 5:2024cv00111
Petitioner:
ROOSEVELT LEE, JR
Respondent:
ROY ODOM
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ANDERSON v. STATE OF GEORGIA
as 1:2024cv00050
Petitioner:
KYRIMA ANDERSON
Respondent:
STATE OF GEORGIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
RODRIGUEZ v. BEASLEY et al
as 7:2024cv00025
Plaintiff:
HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, JR
Defendant:
Warden JACOB BEASLEY, Warden SHAWN EMMONS, Warden BRIAN ADAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00047
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00045
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MADDOX v. MIMS et al
as 5:2024cv00110
Plaintiff:
VIRGIL LAMAR MADDOX
Defendant:
CHARLES MIMS, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, COMMISSIONER TYRONE OLIVER 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.
