Cases 31 - 40 of 40,205
Whittle v. Thomas et al
as 4:2024cv00223
Defendant:
Patrick Pat Labbot, Office S. Thomas and Warden of Fulton County Jail
Plaintiff:
Israel Whittle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PUGH v. WALKER
as 5:2024cv00321
Defendant:
WARDEN HERBERT WALKER, III
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER LENARD PUGH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
CLAYTON v. KEMP et al
as 5:2024cv00320
Defendant:
JEFFERY, DIRECTOR HATCHER, CO CLAYTON and others
Plaintiff:
EARNEST BARNARD CLAYTON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Clay v. Darragh et al
as 1:2024cv04171
Defendant:
District Attorney Lee Darragh and Sheriff Jeff Johnson
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Wayne Clay
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Whittle v. Thomas et al
as 1:2024cv04191
Defendant:
Office S. Thomas, Warden of Fulton County Jail and Patrick Pat Labbot
Plaintiff:
Israel Whittle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PUGH v. WALKER
as 4:2024cv00128
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER LENARD PUGH
Defendant:
WARDEN HERBERT WALKER, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Morena v. Danforth
as 5:2024cv00069
Petitioner:
Luis Hernandez Morena
Unknown:
Attorney General State of Georgia (Notice Only)
Respondent:
William Danforth
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ayala v. Swaney
as 2:2024cv00106
Petitioner:
Ricardo Ayala
Respondent:
Warden G. Swaney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
KNIGHT v. WILLIAMS
as 3:2024cv00093
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER SHANE KNIGHT
Defendant:
SHERIFF JOHN Q WILLIAMS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hill v. Jones
as 1:2024cv04136
Petitioner:
Otis L Hill, Jr
Respondent:
Joshua Jones
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.
