Cases 71 - 80 of 316
Reese v. USA
as 4:2018cv00051
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
Joseph Aaron Reese
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Reese v. Cochran et al
as 1:2017cv00479
Plaintiff:
Mark A. Reese
Defendant:
Sam Cochran, Trey Oliver, III and Nape Care Health Company
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bradley Steiger v. Luther Strange, III, et al
as 17-14535
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRADLEY JOSEPH STEIGER
Defendant - Appellee:
LUTHER J. STRANGE, III, State Attorney General, in his Individual and official capacity, MARY BECKER WINDOM, Chief Appellate Judge, in her individual and official capacity, MARK BRUTON, ADOC Records Director, in his individual and official capacity and others
Mitchell v. Whittaker et al
as 1:2017cv03317
Plaintiff:
Darren Mitchell
Defendant:
Paige Reese Whittaker and Craig Schwall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reese v. Federal Public Defender's Office
as 9:2017cv80770
Plaintiff:
Clarence B. Reese
Defendant:
Federal Public Defender's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Wells v. McKinney et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2017cv00356
Plaintiff:
Dedrick Lashon Wells
Defendant:
Eugene Reese McKinney, Keith Houston, Officer Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reese v. Jones et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2017cv00295
Plaintiff:
Christopher Reese
Defendant:
Karla Jones, Markeon Person, Saterro Hardy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rosado v. Nichols et al
as 2:2017cv00195
Plaintiff:
Randal Rosado
Defendant:
Robert Nichols, Robert Denis Foley , III, Lee County State Attorney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wallace Dean-Mitchell v. Constance Reese
as 17-10773
Petitioner - Appellant:
WALLACE DEAN-MITCHELL
Defendant - Appellee:
CONSTANCE REESE
KNOTT v. DUNCAN et al
as 3:2017cv00094
Plaintiff:
JULIUS KEITH KNOTT
Defendant:
J SCOTT DUNCAN, KELSEY STONE and KIMBERLY REESE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
