Cases 31 - 40 of 210
RICE v. ROGERS
as 1:2022cv00335
Plaintiff:
NATHANIEL DANTE RICE
Defendant:
DANNY ROGERS, ARAMARK, INC., WELL PATH, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Taylor v. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals et al
as 5:2022ct03117
Plaintiff:
Michael Anthony Taylor
Defendant:
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Stubbs Perdue, Attorneys at Law, Christopher Venters and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
SUTPHIN v. CITY OF KING N.C.
as 1:2022cv00202
Plaintiff:
GREGORY ALLEN SUTPHIN
Defendant:
CITY OF KING N.C.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
O'Kelly v. Lashley et al
as 5:2022ct03084
Plaintiff:
Victor L. O'Kelly
Defendant:
Sergeant Lashley, Asst. Warden Rogers, Lt. King and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Blevins v. King et al
as 5:2022ct03064
Plaintiff:
Thomas Blevins and Tommy Ray Blevins
Defendant:
Danny King and Mr. Fornoy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
King v. USA
as 5:2022cv00047
Petitioner:
Derrick Devon King
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
SUTPHIN v. KING POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2022cv00093
Plaintiff:
GREGORY ALLEN SUTPHIN
Defendant:
KING POLICE DEPARTMENT and JORDAN BOYETTE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Wall v. Scarantino et al
as 5:2022hc02009
Petitioner:
Philip Wall
Respondent:
Warden T. Scarantino, Warden Tamara S. Lyn and Warden Melinda King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Burton v. King
as 5:2022hc02003
Petitioner:
Brian Michael Burton
Respondent:
Warden M.L. King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Streeter v. King et al
as 5:2021ct03385
Plaintiff:
Faith Sherrie Streeter
Defendant:
Larry C. King, Nancy R. Hatley and Melyen C. Barahand
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
