Cases 1 - 10 of 12
KEYS v. CONNORS et al
as 1:2023cv02183
Plaintiff:
CLAY KEYS
Defendant:
IAN CONNORS, JOHN DOES 1-2, HERIBERTO TELLEZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
KEYS v. PETERS
as 1:2022cv03317
Petitioner:
CLAY C. KEYS
Respondent:
COLLETE PETERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv01722
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DAKER v. ALSTON & BIRD LLP et al
as 1:2020cv00965
Defendant:
ALSTON & BIRD LLP, WILLIAM CLAY MASSEY and PHILIP AARON SANDICK
Plaintiff:
WASEEM DAKER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132
KEYS v. BARDY et al
as 1:2019cv03597
Plaintiff:
CLAY C. KEYS
Defendant:
DAVID M. BARDY, SEAN R. O'NEILL and JOHN/JANE "DOES"
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
BROWN v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2010cv00547
Defendant:
JEREMY A BROWN, HARLEY G. LAPPIN, KIM WHITE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lewis Clay v. DOJ, et al
as 10-5058
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Lewis Nathaniel Clay
Defendant - Appellee:
United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and Executive Office For United States Attorneys
CLAY v. SMITH
as 1:2010cv00172
Petitioner:
KENNETH CLAY
Respondent:
HUGH SMITH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
BROWN et al v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2009cv01663
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY DEMITRI BROWN
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, LAPPIN, R. S. BALLASH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CLAY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 1:2009cv00179
Plaintiff:
LEWIS NATHANIEL CLAY
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION and EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
