Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Thompson et al v. 3M Company et al
as 2:2023cv00767
Defendant:
3M Company, Du Pont de Nemours Inc, UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Derrick Tamar Thompson, William Spangler, Randall Lynn Spaustat and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00204
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Towles v. Myers et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2017cv00068
Plaintiff:
Rolland Sean Towles
Defendant:
Walter Myers, Jefferson Dunn and Captain Lawson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Towles v. Mobile Co Circuit Court et al
as 1:2017cv00014
Plaintiff:
Rolland Sean Towles
Defendant:
Mobile Co Circuit Court, District Atty Office, DART Restitution Dept and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Towles v. State Of Alabama
as 1:2015cv00443
Petitioner:
Rolland Sean Towles
Respondent:
State Of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Towles v. Mendle et al(INMATE 1)(NO DISCOVERY)
as 2:2015cv00146
Plaintiff:
Rolland Sean Towles
Defendant:
Bob Mendle and Tahir Siddiq
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Towles v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2014cv00962
Plaintiff:
Rolland Sean Towles
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections and Bullock County
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Towles v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2014cv01510
Plaintiff:
Rolland Sean Towles
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections and Bullock County
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Towles v. Corizon Inc et al
as 2:2014cv00884
Plaintiff:
Rolland Sean Towles
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Defendant:
Corizon Inc, Siddiq and Beth
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Towles v. Daniels et al (INMATE 3)
as 3:2014cv00235
Plaintiff:
Alexander Towles
Defendant:
Leeposey Daniels and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
