Cases 1 - 10 of 10
WINGFIELD v. ANDREWS et al
as 5:2024cv00234
Defendant:
JOSHUA ANDREWS and JOHN AND OR JANE DOES
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY BERNARD WINGFIELD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wingfield v. Phams
as 1:2024cv02221
Respondent:
Angela Phams
Petitioner:
Timothy Bernard Wingfield
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wingfield v. Clegg et al
as 1:2024cv02220
Defendant:
Kathy K. Guidry, State of Georgia, Dana Laney and others
Plaintiff:
Timothy Bernard Wingfield
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
EGANS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv05312
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY BERNARD EGANS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Timothy Wingfield v. Jeffrey Mann, et al
as 20-14371
Defendant / Appellee:
JEFFREY MANN, Sheriff of Dekalb County Jail, MELODY M. MADDOX, Superintendent of Dekalb County Jail, MICHAEL L. THURMOND, Director/Commissioner of Dekalb County Jail and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TIMOTHY BERNARD WINGFIELD
BERNARD v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 8:2020cv98497
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY BERNARD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Wingfield v. Mann et al
as 1:2020cv02136
Defendant:
Jeffrey Mann, Michael L. Thurmond, Melody M. Maddox and others
Plaintiff:
Timothy Bernard Wingfield
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HICKS
as 1:2015cv00147
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY BERNARD HICKS
Defendant:
MARCUS E LEMACKS, JOHN MUCCI, JOHN AND OR JANE DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHEPPARD v. JOHNSON
as 3:2011cv00104
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY BERNARD SHEPPARD
Defendant:
MARY M JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barnes v. The City of Dothan (INMATE2)
as 1:2008cv00905
Plaintiff:
Timothy Bernard Barnes
Defendant:
The City of Dothan
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
