Cases 41 - 50 of 52
Black Warrior Riverkeeper Inc. v. Kim T. Thomas et al.
as 2:2013cv00410
Plaintiff:
Black Warrior Riverkeeper Inc.
Defendant:
Kim T Thomas and Alabama Utility Services LLC
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1365 Environmental Matters
Miller v. Thomas
as 2:2013cv00154
Petitioner:
Alan Eugene Miller
Respondent:
Kim T Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Moody v. Thomas
as 2:2012cv04139
Petitioner:
Walter Leroy Moody
Respondent:
Kim T Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Daniel v. Thomas
as 2:2012cv02526
Petitioner:
Renard Marcel Daniel
Respondent:
Kim T Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Grimes v. Thomas et al
as 2:2012cv01909
Plaintiff:
Tony Eugene Grimes
Defendant:
Kim T Thomas, Cheryl Price, William E Donaldson Correctional Facility and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Thomas et al
as 2:2012cv00125
Plaintiff:
Joey Ray Smith
Defendant:
Kim T. Thomas, Richard Allen, John R. Cooper and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pinkins v. The State of Alabama, et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2012cv00007
Plaintiff:
Levance D. Pinkins
Defendant:
The State of Alabama, Robert Bentley, Kim T. Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mitchell v. Rouse, et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2011cv01101
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Mitchell
Defendant:
Scott Rouse, Anne A. Hill, Bart Harmon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Osborne v. Patterson et al
as 1:2011cv00638
Plaintiff:
Korrin Osborne
Defendant:
Tony Patterson, Dexter Brown, Brian Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ray v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2011cv00543
Petitioner:
Domineque Ray
Respondent:
Alabama Department of Corrections, Kim T. Thomas and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Death Penalty)
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.
