Cases 121 - 130 of 208
Koston v. Roundtree et al
as 1:2016cv00195
Plaintiff:
Noah David Koston
Defendant:
Richard Roundtree, The Richmond County Georgia Sheriff's Office and John/Jane Doe(s)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2016cv01961
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
LACOUNT v. ROUNDTREE et al
as 5:2016cv00346
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH HOLLAND LACOUNT
Defendant:
DAWN ROUNDTREE, PHYLLIS EASTON-BARKLEY, TAMMY GRINER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LACOUNT v. ROUNDTREE et al
as 3:2016cv00121
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH HOLLAND LACOUNT
Defendant:
DAWN ROUNDTREE, PHYLLIS EASTON-BARKLEY, TAMMY GRINER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Timothy West v. Richard Roundtree, et al
as 16-15144
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TIMOTHY C. WEST
Defendant - Appellee:
RICHARD ROUNDTREE, Richmond County Sheriff Department, CHARLES B. WEBSTER DETENTION CENTER, ROGERS and others
Roundtree v. United States of America
as 3:2016cv00748
Petitioner:
Charles Christopher Roundtree
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Roundtree v. Florida Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2016cv00713
Petitioner:
Michael Wayne Roundtree
Respondent:
Florida Department of Corrections and Florida Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Glenn v. Roundtree et al
as 1:2016cv00068
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Cornelius Glenn
Defendant:
Richard Roundtree, William Smith, Terence Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
In re: Charles Roundtree
as 16-12554
Petitioner:
In re: CHARLES CHRISTOPHER ROUNDTREE
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vaughns v. Roundtree et al
as 1:2016cv00047
Plaintiff:
Johnny Vaughns
Defendant:
FNU Roundtree, FNU Levertt, FNU Judy and others
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.
