Tennessee Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 24,946
Nelson v. Hinson et al
as 2:2024cv00072
Defendant:
Jackson County Jail, Sheriff Marty Hinson, Maggie Claudell and others
Plaintiff:
Anthony Nelson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Leeds
as 3:2024cv00409
Respondent:
Warden Chance Leeds
Petitioner:
Paul J Johnson, Jr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Carr v. Lee et al
as 2:2024cv02753
Defendant:
Deputy Lee and Mario Wright
Plaintiff:
Dwayne Carr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mock v. Holloway
as 1:2024cv01219
Petitioner:
Brian Ray Mock
Respondent:
James M. Holloway
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Odum v. State of Tennessee
as 1:2024cv00335
Respondent:
Tennessee State of
Petitioner:
Nathan Lebron Odum, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rimmer v. Vantell
as 2:2024cv02745
Petitioner:
Nehemiah Rimmer
Respondent:
Warden Vince Vantell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
James v. Brown et al
as 3:2024cv01200
Defendant:
Wellpath Health, Chief f/n/u Brown, Correct Care Solutions and others
Plaintiff:
Joshuah James
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hicks v. Rutherford County Police Department et al
as 3:2024cv01195
Defendant:
Michael S. Fitzhugh, Rutherford County Sheriff's Office, f/n/u O'Rourke and others
Plaintiff:
Phelix L. Hicks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brooks v. Shelby County Code Enforcement et al
as 2:2024cv02744
Defendant:
The City of Memphis, Shelby County Code Enforcement, Department of Housing and Urban Development and others
Plaintiff:
Unique Brooks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Young v. Cox et al
as 1:2024cv00331
Defendant:
TN Department of Corrections and James Cox
Plaintiff:
Joshua Young
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.
