Cases 71 - 80 of 565
Carter v. Paulk et al
as 5:2021cv00058
Plaintiff:
Edward Carter
Defendant:
Daniel Paulk, Scott Harper, Chris Stevens and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00618
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Norwood v. Board of Pardons et al et al
as 1:2021cv03601
Plaintiff:
Doyle Anthony Norwood, Sr.
Defendant:
Board of Pardons et al and Chair Board
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Blue et al v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles
as 1:2021cv03140
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Blue and Lester Blue
Defendant:
State Board of Pardons and Paroles
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lee v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, State of
as 2:2021cv01007
Plaintiff:
Michael Lee
Defendant:
Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, State of and Cortney Swain
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles et al
as 4:2021cv00996
Plaintiff:
Bradley Jerome Smith
Defendant:
Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, Dr Austin Baker, Jackson Co Hospital Emergency room and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sims v. Kemp et al
as 4:2021cv00134
Plaintiff:
Bryan K. Sims
Defendant:
Gov. Brian Kemp, Department of Corrections, Board of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Barry Slakman v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, et al
as 21-12226
Defendant / Appellee:
STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES and TERRY E. BARNARD, Chairman of State Board Pardons & Paroles
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BARRY SLAKMAN
Roy v. Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles
as 2:2021cv00847
Defendant:
Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles and Montgomery County Court
Plaintiff:
Eddie Roy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cavienss v. The Office of Pardons and Clemency et al
as 1:2021cv02529
Plaintiff:
Stanley Aron Cavienss
Defendant:
United State Pardon Attorney Office and The Office of Pardons and Clemency
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.
