US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 985
Norton v. State of Alabama
as 1:2023cv00448
Petitioner:
Thomas Norton
Respondent:
State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Herrine v. Folks
as 1:2023cv00405
Petitioner:
Antonio Herrine
Respondent:
Sharon Folks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Woods v. Crabtree
as 1:2023cv00389
Petitioner:
Shaniah Woods
Respondent:
Chadwick Crabtree
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gordon v. Carter et al
as 1:2023cv00384
Plaintiff:
Justin Terrell Gordon
Defendant:
Karen Carter and Steven T. Marshall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bailey v. Morgan
as 1:2023cv00358
Petitioner:
Paul Eugene Bailey
Respondent:
Phyllis Morgan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lockett v. Williams et al
as 1:2023cv00346
Petitioner:
Donald Dzsan Lockett and Donald D'zsan Lockett
Respondent:
Karen Williams and State Of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bailey v. Mack
as 1:2023cv00311
Petitioner:
Thomas Justin Bailey
Respondent:
Huey Hoss Mack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Goodson v. Morgan
as 1:2023cv00303
Petitioner:
Ronald Andre Goodson
Respondent:
Phyllis Morgan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Odom-Davis v. State Of Alabama
as 1:2023cv00257
Petitioner:
Eric Vernardo Odom-Davis
Respondent:
State Of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Moffett v. Noe
as 1:2023cv00218
Petitioner:
Keonte M. Moffett
Respondent:
Guy Noe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
