Cases 51 - 59 of 59
Chrishon v. Shelby County Correctional Facility et al
as 2:2008cv01445
Plaintiff:
John Chrishon
Defendant:
Shelby County Correctional Facility and Shelby County Health Services
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Chrishon v. Shelby County Courts et al
as 2:2008cv01444
Plaintiff:
John L. Chrishon
Defendant:
Shelby County Courts, Richard Vickers and Dan Reeves
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Allen v. Curry et al
as 2:2007cv01151
Plaintiff:
Jerry Allen
Defendant:
Chris Curry and Shelby County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
King v. Shelby County Correctional Facility Officers, Sergeants and Sheriff
as 2:2007cv01118
Plaintiff:
Sean Patrick King
Defendant:
Shelby County Correctional Facility Officers, Sergeants and Sheriff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robles v. Shelby County Jail et al
as 2:2007cv00682
Petitioner:
Elsi Melissa Robles
Respondent:
Shelby County Jail and Attorney General of State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hannah v. Shelby County Jail
as 2:2007cv00684
Plaintiff:
Jamel Lonzell Hannah
Defendant:
Shelby County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Berry v. Shelby County Public Defenders Office, The
as 2:2007cv00666
Plaintiff:
Brian Scott Berry
Defendant:
Shelby County Public Defenders Office, The
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stanfield v. Shelby County Circuit Court et al
as 2:2007cv00667
Petitioner:
Edgar Lee Stanfield
Respondent:
Shelby County Circuit Court, Harrington, Curry and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dixon v. Shelby County Jail
as 2:2007cv00634
Petitioner:
Darryl Lynn Dixon
Respondent:
Shelby County Jail
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.
