Cases 21 - 30 of 5,388
Roth v. Metcalfe County Sheriff Office
as 1:2024cv00076
Plaintiff:
Nathan Donald Roth
Defendant:
Metcalfe County Sheriff Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clayton, III v. Woosley
as 4:2024cv00055
Petitioner:
Earl Clayton, III
Respondent:
Jason Woosley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Frederick v. Henderson County et al
as 4:2024cv00056
Plaintiff:
Gerald Wayne Frederick, Jr.
Defendant:
Henderson County, Zachery Ortis and Austin Miller
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clemans v. Scarborough et al
as 3:2024cv00334
Plaintiff:
Daniel R. Clemans
Defendant:
J. Scarborough, Brandon Finch, Amber Brown and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
O'Bannon v. K.C.P.C. et al
as 3:2024cv00331
Plaintiff:
Antonio Lee O'Bannon
Defendant:
K.C.P.C., Matthew Douglas and Ron Jackson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cain v. Page et al
as 5:2024cv00108
Plaintiff:
Cain and Anthony Cain
Defendant:
Sargent Noah Page, Jailer Ken Claud, Thomas Marshall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bowman v. Dennis et al
as 1:2024cv00074
Plaintiff:
Hywel Channing Bowman
Defendant:
Jeb Dennis and Christopher Ahlers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. Baker et al
as 3:2024cv00320
Plaintiff:
Avren Scott
Defendant:
Mark Baker and Julie Kaelin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cain v. McCustion et al
as 5:2024cv00104
Plaintiff:
Cain and Anthony Cain
Defendant:
Lt Slade McCustion, Jailer Ken Claud, Major Thomas Marshall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Martin v. Warden USP McCreary
as 3:2024cv00315
Petitioner:
Adam Eugene Martin
Respondent:
Warden USP McCreary
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
