Ohio Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 71 - 80 of 17,759
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
Taper v. Tabor et al
as 1:2024cv00159
Plaintiff:
Joshua Taper
Defendant:
Jon Tabor, Tammy Shelton, Amber Stanley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Johnson v. Manns et al
as 2:2024cv01368
Plaintiff:
Alfred A. Johnson, Sr.
Defendant:
Officer T Manns, Officer Halib Kahn, Annette Chambers-Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Manns et al
as 1:2024cv00174
Plaintiff:
Alfred A. Johnson, Sr.
Defendant:
Officer T Manns, Officer Halib Kahn, Annette Chambers-Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fitts v. Gear et al
as 2:2024cv01391
Plaintiff:
Johnathan D. Fitts
Defendant:
Officer Gear and Lieutenant Crabtree
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Singh v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution
as 1:2024cv00156
Petitioner:
tarranpreet singh
Respondent:
Warden Noble Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Holmes v. Davis et al
as 3:2024cv00091
Plaintiff:
Brian Isiah Holmes, Jr.
Defendant:
Mike Davis and Chaplain Alfred Marcus
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Holmes v. Davis et al
as 2:2024cv01426
Plaintiff:
Brian Isiah Holmes, Jr.
Defendant:
Mike Davis and Chaplain Alfred Marcus
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
