US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 51 - 60 of 9,988
ANDERSON v. SURRY COUNTY SHERRIFF'S OFFICE, et al
as 1:2024cv00192
Defendant:
JIMMIE CALVIN ANDERSON, SURRY COUNTY SHERRIFF'S OFFICE and BRIAN COCKERHAM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WASHINGTON v. USA
as 1:2024cv00197
Petitioner:
DEREK MCNEILL WASHINGTON
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
PETERSON v. USA
as 1:2024cv00195
Petitioner:
DEJOUR AIKE PETERSON
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
THOMAS v. BIRKHEAD et al
as 1:2024cv00189
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL THOMAS
Defendant:
SHERIFF CLARENCE F. BIRKHEAD, OFC. GLASSCOCK, WELLPATH, LLC d/b/a/ CORRECT CARE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LOTHARP v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2024cv00196
Petitioner:
ZANNIE JAY LOTHARP
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
LYNN v. USA
as 1:2024cv00194
Petitioner:
GARY GIOVON LYNN
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
WILLIAMS v. KERSEY et al
as 1:2024cv00178
Plaintiff:
DEDRICK L. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
RALPH KERSEY, B.J. KNIGHT, KIM FOY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SPRAUVE v. UNKNOWN OFFICIALS AT DURHAM COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al
as 1:2024cv00179
Plaintiff:
JON C. SPRAUVE
Defendant:
UNKNOWN OFFICIALS AT DURHAM COUNTY DETENTION CENTER and UNKNOWN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HILL v. ISHEE
as 1:2024cv00182
Petitioner:
SIMARON D. HILL
Respondent:
TODD ISHEE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SPARROW v. USA
as 1:2024cv00177
Petitioner:
RICHARD AARON SPARROW
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
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.
