Cases 31 - 40 of 52
Hollingsworth v. Thomas et al
as 1:2013cv00480
Plaintiff:
Richard Hollingsworth
Defendant:
Kim T. Thomas, Gary Hetzel, Ronzella Howard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thigpen v. Hill et al
as 2:2013cv01754
Plaintiff:
Willie Thigpen
Defendant:
Christian Hill, Hart, Cheryl Price and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv00606
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Stone v. Thomas et al
as 2:2013cv01329
Petitioner:
Westley Khadafy Stone, III
Respondent:
Kim T Thomas and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lane v. Thomas, et al (INMATE 3)
as 1:2013cv00490
Plaintiff:
Bobby Rogers Lane
Defendant:
Kim T. Thomas, Luther Strange and Kenneth Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Thomas
as 2:2013cv01105
Petitioner:
Donderrious Williams
Respondent:
Kim T Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Knight v. Bentley et al
as 1:2013cv00250
Plaintiff:
Nickholas Knight
Defendant:
Robert Bentley, Kim T. Thomas, Mary Arnold and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Thomas
as 2:2013cv00557
Petitioner:
Willie B Smith, III
Respondent:
Kim T Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Chandler v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 4:2013cv00447
Plaintiff:
John Thomas Chandler
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, Corizon Health Services, Kim T Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jarrett v. Thomas et al
as 6:2013cv00442
Petitioner:
Brandon James Jarrett
Respondent:
Kim T Thomas and The Attorney General of the State of Alabama
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.
