Alabama Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 51 - 60 of 5,516
Ramey v. Lewis et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2023cv00611
Plaintiff:
Abraham Ramey
Defendant:
Lt. Lewis and Sgt. Norman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lacey v. Keeton Corrections, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv00388
Plaintiff:
Adrian Lacey
Defendant:
Keeton Corrections, Inc. and Lucy May-Lymon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ramey v. Fair et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2023cv00581
Plaintiff:
Abraham Ramey
Defendant:
Officer Fair and John Crow
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Subel v. Ganey et al
as 1:2023cv00367
Plaintiff:
Carlos Jack Subel
Defendant:
Brenda Q. Ganey, Jody W. Bishop, Kristi Deason Hagood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Howard v. Powell et al
as 7:2023cv01275
Plaintiff:
Gavin Howard
Defendant:
Jordan Powell and Keith Cox
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
State of Alabama v. Pugh
as 1:2023cv00362
Plaintiff:
State of Alabama
Defendant:
Jason Pugh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Removal of Civil/Criminal Action from State Court
Reese v. Sharpton
as 2:2023cv01249
Plaintiff:
Lorenzo Resse and Lorenzo Reese
Defendant:
Dr. Sharpton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Beasley v. Smith et al
as 6:2023cv01243
Plaintiff:
Jerry Michael Beasley
Defendant:
Nick Smith, Shoemaker, Holtzman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2023cv01242
Plaintiff:
De'Vontay Jones
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections and William E Donaldson Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Sumpter v. Butler et al
as 1:2023cv00360
Plaintiff:
LaJuan Anthony Sumpter and Lajuan Sumpter
Defendant:
Reosha Butler, Jefferson S. Dunn and Officer Nickols
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
