Cases 41 - 50 of 931
Davis v. Knox et al
as 3:2023cv00298
Plaintiff:
Dionte Jermaine Davis
Defendant:
Tiffani S. Knox, C. Russell, Tyler Watson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lowe v. Lopez
as 3:2023cv00212
Plaintiff:
Richard Anthony Lowe
Defendant:
H. Lopez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MORRIS v. MIDDLEBROOKS et al
as 5:2023cv00042
Plaintiff:
LARRY MORRIS and RICKY FULTON
Defendant:
SCOTT MIDDLEBROOKS, JACQUELYN BLACKMON, T W TAYLOR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WILLIAMS v. LAVERGNE et al
as 3:2023cv02374
Plaintiff:
BRUCE WILLIAMS, JR
Defendant:
D LAVERGNE, C HENDERSON, BUTLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Crist et al
as 8:2023cv00126
Plaintiff:
Richard Williams
Defendant:
Charlie J. Crist, Ricky Dixon, Darrell D. Dirks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Winn v. Roundtree et al
as 1:2022cv00163
Plaintiff:
James Lewis Winn
Defendant:
Sheriff Richard Roundtree, Sheriff Deputy Zachary Cuonzo-Simmons, Sheriff Deputy Brandon Kennedy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hill et al v. Ms. Valdez et al
as 8:2022cv02856
Plaintiff:
Tony L. Hill, Clifford E. Gaynor, Russell E. Lee and others
Defendant:
Ms. Valdez, Warden Roger Hester, Ms. H. Pierre and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Richard Harris v. M. Glass
as 22-13941
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RICHARD HARRIS
Defendant / Appellee:
M. GLASS, Classification Supervisor in his or her Individual and Official Capacity
Eckerd v. Lush et al
as 2:2022cv00125
Plaintiff:
Andrew William Eckerd
Defendant:
Nigel Lush, Keith Higgins, Glynn County Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Harris v. Goodwin et al
as 3:2022cv01155
Plaintiff:
Richard Harris
Defendant:
Goodwin and Foster
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.
