U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 3,429
Webster v. USA
as 2:2025cv00103
Petitioner:
Dondrael Webster
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Smith v. State Of Alabama
as 1:2025cv00092
Plaintiff:
Henry Clay Smith
Defendant:
State Of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sanders v. Dallas County Jail et al
as 2:2025cv00091
Plaintiff:
Robert Justin Sanders
Defendant:
Dallas County Jail, Dallas County Sheriff's Jail and Dallas County Alabama
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rencher v. Peters et al
as 1:2025cv00079
Plaintiff:
Michael Levon Rencher
Defendant:
Kenneth Peters, John Hamm and COI Officer Brooks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Pugh v. Calloway et al
as 1:2025cv00075
Petitioner:
Eddie Lee Pugh
Respondent:
Rolanda Calloway and Attorney General of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pugh v. Gordy
as 2:2025cv00075
Petitioner:
Eddie Lee Pugh
Respondent:
Christopher Gordy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dryer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
as 1:2025cv00074
Petitioner:
Marcus Dryer
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Tarabein v. USA
as 1:2025cv00067
Petitioner:
MD Rassan M Tarabein
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Maxberry v. Childress
as 1:2025cv00059
Petitioner:
Sidney Kisaan Maxberry
Respondent:
Warden R. Childress
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Hale v. Calloway et al
as 1:2025cv00060
Petitioner:
Alonzo Darrell Hale
Respondent:
Rolanda Calloway and John Q. Hamm
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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.
