US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 81 - 90 of 9,998
THOMPSON v. CITY OF DURHAM et al
as 1:2024cv00139
Plaintiff:
BRANDON E. THOMPSON
Defendant:
CITY OF DURHAM, DURHAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANGELA ASHBY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BROWN v. USA
as 1:2024cv00143
Petitioner:
DERRICK DASHAWN BROWN
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
BREWER v. NORDAN et al
as 1:2024cv00135
Plaintiff:
KENNETH BREWER
Defendant:
HENRYS NORDAN, TODD E. ISHEE, CAPTAIN PRATT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MARTIN v. BIRKHEAD et al
as 1:2024cv00165
Plaintiff:
BRANDON OTHA MARTIN
Defendant:
CHARLES F. BIRKHEAD, M. SPENCER, GLASSCOCK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
COOK v. SURRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2024cv00162
Plaintiff:
CHARLES DAVID COOK
Defendant:
SURRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, OFFICER GOINS and ETHAN EVANS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ANDREWS v. USA
as 1:2024cv00137
Petitioner:
ALENA DEANNE ANDREWS and ALENA SINGLETARY
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
COE v. USA
as 1:2024cv00151
Petitioner:
SUSAN ELIZABETH COE
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
BENITEZ-FLORES v. USA
as 1:2024cv00136
Petitioner:
JORGE LUIS BENITEZ-FLORES
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
LAMBERT v. RANDOLPH COUNTY COURT
as 1:2024cv00148
Petitioner:
BRANSON LAMBERT
Respondent:
RANDOLPH COUNTY COURT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
BEVERLEY v. BREEZE
as 1:2024cv00149
Plaintiff:
JAMES BEVERLEY
Defendant:
DURHAM CO and WILLIAM BREEZE
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.
