Cases 111 - 120 of 39,744
HOUSTON v. MITCHELL et al
as 5:2024cv00154
Plaintiff:
BRADLEY MANDELA HOUSTON
Defendant:
OFFICER MITCHELL and DEPUTY WARDEN LATORSHA JONES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BROOKS v. TOBY et al
as 5:2024cv00155
Plaintiff:
STANLEY BROOKS
Defendant:
WARDEN ANNETTIA TOBY, DEPUTY WARDEN JEREMY FOTSON, DEPUTY WARDEN CALPURNIA WASHINGTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Leigh v. The State of Georgia Judicial System
as 1:2024cv02222
Petitioner:
Tremaine Deshun Leigh
Respondent:
The State of Georgia Judicial System
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lettieri v. Roemer et al
as 1:2024cv02218
Plaintiff:
David Lettieri
Defendant:
Michael J. Roemer, Paul E. Bonanno, Jeffery L. Bagley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Saxton v. Perry
as 4:2024cv00131
Plaintiff:
Terry Saxton
Defendant:
J. Kevin Perry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Woods v. Wiza
as 1:2024cv02180
Petitioner:
Fabian Woods, Jr.
Respondent:
Sgt. Scott Wiza
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams-Clark v. McClelland et al
as 2:2024cv00109
Plaintiff:
Adam Y. Williams-Clark
Defendant:
Chief Judge Troy Russell McClelland and City of Cumming, Georgia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McKenna v. Conway
as 1:2024cv02161
Plaintiff:
Kevin H. McKenna
Defendant:
Matthew R. Conway
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sifuentes v. Unknown
as 4:2024cv00130
Plaintiff:
Gerardo Roel Sifuentes
Defendant:
Unknown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brinson v. Warden, FCI Jesup
as 2:2024cv00068
Petitioner:
Raheem T. Brinson
Respondent:
Warden, FCI Jesup
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
