Cases 51 - 60 of 1,021
Murray v. Elmore County Jail (INMATE 3)
as 2:2023cv00590
Plaintiff:
Kedrick Lamar Murray
Defendant:
Elmore County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brown v. United States of America
as 3:2023cv01093
Petitioner:
Reginald Lamar Brown
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Cheddie Griffin v. USA
as 23-13153
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHEDDIE LAMAR GRIFFIN
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Erramraju v. Lamar et al
as 2:2023cv01272
Petitioner:
Ramaraju Rom Erramraju
Respondent:
David Lamar and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cunningham v. Hamm et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2023cv00564
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Cunningham and Dewayne Scott Cunningham
Defendant:
John Q. Hamm, David Lamar, Lt. Randolph and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Roberts v. State of Florida et al
as 4:2023cv10084
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Lamar Roberts
Defendant:
State of Florida and The Attorney General of the State of Florida
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Blake v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Orange County)
as 6:2023cv01843
Petitioner:
Kevin Lamar Blake
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00547
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Deal v. Wilcher
as 4:2023cv00264
Petitioner:
Kendrick Lamar Deal
Respondent:
Sheriff John Wilcher
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kenneth Bell v. USA
as 23-12988
Petitioner / Appellant:
KENNETH LAMAR BELL
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
