US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 101 - 110 of 10,932
Dalton v. State of Tennessee et al
as 2:2024cv00007
Plaintiff:
Jeremy James Dalton
Defendant:
State of Tennessee, Fentress County, Shane Sexton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shaw v. Southern Health Partners et al
as 3:2024cv00156
Plaintiff:
Troy David Shaw
Defendant:
Southern Health Partners and Dickson County, TN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Travis v. Williams et al
as 3:2024cv00145
Plaintiff:
Datrin Travis
Defendant:
Sarah-Ann Williams, Chief T. Conrad, A. Word and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wilson v. Phillips et al
as 3:2024cv00141
Plaintiff:
James Wilson
Defendant:
Amber L. Phillips and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Evans v. Phillips et al
as 3:2024cv00137
Plaintiff:
Timothy Evans
Defendant:
Amber L. Phillips and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Honaker v. Lincoln County Jail
as 3:2024cv00138
Plaintiff:
Shannon Doyle Honaker
Defendant:
Lincoln County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Matson v. Phillips et al
as 3:2024cv00140
Plaintiff:
Michael D. Matson
Defendant:
Amber L. Phillips and John Doe #1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mount v. Phillips et al
as 3:2024cv00139
Plaintiff:
Robert Jesse Mount
Defendant:
Amber L. Phillips and John Doe #1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Weaver v. Phillips et al
as 3:2024cv00134
Plaintiff:
Christian J. Weaver
Defendant:
Amber L. Phillips and John Doe #1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chalmers v. Phillips et al
as 3:2024cv00135
Plaintiff:
Demariceo Chalmers
Defendant:
Amber L. Phillips and John Doe #1
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.
