US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 10,395
Philpott v. City of Stow et al.
as 5:2024cv00580
Plaintiff:
Michael Philpott
Defendant:
City of Stow, Stephan W. Miller, Samantha R. Wike and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pierce v. Robinson
as 4:2024cv00570
Petitioner:
James Eugene Pierce
Respondent:
Warden Norm Robinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fenderson v. United States of America
as 1:2024cv00566
Petitioner:
Markell Fenderson
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Peterson v. Landhandle
as 1:2024cv00542
Plaintiff:
Isaac Peterson
Defendant:
Sheriff Kasey Landhandle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Manning v. Henderson
as 3:2024cv00559
Plaintiff:
DeAmontae Manning
Defendant:
Kimberly Henderson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Baker v. County of Mahoning et al.
as 4:2024cv00530
Plaintiff:
Nathan L Baker
Defendant:
County of Mahoning, Sheriff Jerry Greene, Warden Kountz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Goins v. O'Donnell
as 1:2024cv00529
Plaintiff:
Justin Goins
Defendant:
Warden O'Donnell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cannon v. USA
as 1:2024cv00518
Petitioner:
Doyal R. Cannon
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Smith v. Reynolds
as 1:2024cv00517
Petitioner:
Gage L. Smith
Respondent:
Warden Stephen Reynolds
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Eckstein v. Lloyd et al.
as 1:2024cv00514
Plaintiff:
Andrew Eckstein
Defendant:
Inspector Diane Lloyd, Warden Jennifer Black and Lutinent D. Thrasher
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.