Cases 31 - 40 of 134,914
Safrit v. Ishee
as 5:2024hc02116
Petitioner:
Matthew A. Safrit and Matthews Aaron Safrit
Respondent:
Todd Ishee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hinton v. Ishee et al
as 5:2024ct03155
Plaintiff:
Charles Everette Hinton
Defendant:
Todd Ishee and Edward F. Basden
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Orr v. Walsh et al
as 5:2024ct03154
Plaintiff:
Eric Christopher Orr
Defendant:
Sergeant Walsh, Correctional Officer Sculley, Sergeant Emig and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Everson v. Roberts
as 5:2024cv03556
Plaintiff:
Veronica Everson
Defendant:
James Roberts
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr (Other)
El-Bey v. Central Laundry Facility et al
as 1:2024cv01771
Plaintiff:
Bro Stephen Michael El-Bey
Defendant:
Central Laundry Facility, Employees, Agency Officials and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
St. Rose v. Cruz et al
as 1:2024cv01772
Plaintiff:
Lloyd St. Rose
Defendant:
Ms. Cruz, Zowie Barnes, Ms. Harris and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Stitely v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services at MCTC
as 1:2024cv01773
Plaintiff:
David Stitely
Defendant:
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services at MCTC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Royal II v. Central Maryland Correctional Facility
as 1:2024cv01775
Plaintiff:
Thomas C. Royal II
Defendant:
Central Maryland Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Derek Sprouse v. Virginia Director of Prisons
as 24-6583
Petitioner:
DEREK SPROUSE
Respondent:
VIRGINIA DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, Department of Corrections
Donald Parker v. Portsmouth City PD
as 24-6585
Plaintiff:
DONALD PARKER
Defendant:
PORTSMOUTH CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, RENADO PRINCE and STEPHEN JENKINS
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.
