Cases 1 - 10 of 848
Locklear v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority et al
as 7:2024cv00389
Plaintiff:
Christopher L. Locklear
Defendant:
Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority, A.J. Smith and Tamala Gillespie
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thompson v. Smith
as 2:2024cv00378
Petitioner:
Lawrence E. Thompson, Jr.
Respondent:
Nelson Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Smith v. Owens et al
as 7:2024cv00373
Plaintiff:
Wilbert Smith
Defendant:
R. Owens, B. Dotson, T. Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Targonsk et al
as 2:2024cv00363
Plaintiff:
Timothy R. Smith
Defendant:
Targonsk, S. Herrick, G. Swartz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Floyd v. Smith et al
as 7:2024cv00356
Plaintiff:
Curtis Leroy Floyd
Defendant:
Happy Smith, Rick White, P. Sykes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brown v. Smith
as 3:2024cv00382
Plaintiff:
Brian Scott Brown
Defendant:
Nelson Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Corbin et al
as 7:2024cv00293
Plaintiff:
Timothy Wayne Smith
Defendant:
Superintendent Clay Corbin, Captain H. Custer, A. Kovak and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Owens et al
as 7:2024cv00290
Plaintiff:
Wilbert Smith
Defendant:
R. Owens, B. Dotson, T. Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Caruthers v. Rockingham Regional Jail Medical Department et al
as 7:2024cv00291
Plaintiff:
William H. Caruthers
Defendant:
Rockingham Regional Jail Medical Department, Officer Perez, Officer Morbin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Unknown
as 2:2024cv00274
Plaintiff:
Kevin Smith, Sr.
Defendant:
Unknown
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.
