US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Cases 111 - 120 of 21,995
Hartley-Broaden v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
as 2:2024cv00159
Plaintiff:
Freda Hartley-Broaden
Defendant:
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Duncan v. Security and Medical Staff at Elmore Correctional Facility (INMATE 2)
as 2:2024cv00160
Plaintiff:
Dale Duncan
Defendant:
Security and Medical Staff at Elmore Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Wendy's Inc. (MAG+)
as 2:2024cv00163
Plaintiff:
Peter J. Smith
Defendant:
Wendy's Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Smith v. Ivey et al (MAG+)
as 2:2024cv00164
Plaintiff:
Peter J. Smith
Defendant:
Kay Ivey and Cody Rowland
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Smith v. Ivey et al (MAG+)
as 2:2024cv00161
Plaintiff:
Peter J. Smith
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, Bob Riley, John Cooper and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Smith v. Ivey et al
as 2:2024cv00162
Plaintiff:
Peter J. Smith
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, Hal Taylor, Laura Collins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Sharma v. Peters et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2024cv00158
Petitioner:
Sohrab Sharma
Defendant:
Colette Peters and W D Keyes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Bailey v. McClain et al (INMATE 2)
as 3:2024cv00157
Plaintiff:
James Leslie Bailey
Defendant:
Antonio McClain and Randolph County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bailey v. Rogers (INMATE 1)
as 2:2024cv00156
Plaintiff:
James Leslie Bailey
Defendant:
Captain Rogers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00153
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
