Cases 21 - 30 of 30
Jeffery Williams v. Warden, et al
as 14-14877
Petitioner - Appellant:
JEFFERY WILLIAMS
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Williams v. Forniss et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2014cv00931
Plaintiff:
Jeffery Williams
Defendant:
Leon Forniss and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hill v. Thomas et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2011cv00902
Plaintiff:
Carmice Reon Hill
Defendant:
Kim J. Thomas, Leon Forniss, Classification Tant and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Maddox v. Thomas et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2011cv00787
Plaintiff:
Chris Maddox
Defendant:
Kim Tobias Thomas, Jeffery Williams, Louis Boyd and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Thomas et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2011cv00478
Plaintiff:
Marqis Jones
Defendant:
Kim Tobias Thomas, Jeffery Williams, Willie Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nedolandez Santos v. Alabama DOC, et al
as 11-12014
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NEDOLANDEZ SANTOS
Defendant - Appellee:
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, W. MYERS, JEFFERY WILLIAMS and others
Santos v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2011cv00059
Plaintiff:
Nedolandez Santos
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, W. Myers, Jeffery Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Hall County
as 2:2010cv00063
Plaintiff:
Jeffery Williams
Defendant:
Hall County
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Monroe County Board of Education
as 1:2009cv00433
Plaintiff:
Jeffery Williams
Defendant:
Monroe County Board of Education
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bobadilla et al v. Roanoke Companies Group, Inc. et al
as 1:2007cv01037
Plaintiff:
Sandra Bobadilla, David Bridges, Robert Carlson and others
Defendant:
Aerofil Technology, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Innovative Chemical Technologies, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
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.
