Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Tamar Harvey v. Ralph Coleman
as 23-7104
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TAMAR DEVELL HARVEY
Defendant / Appellee:
RALPH R. COLEMAN, Lieutenant, TIMOTHY W. GREEN, Unit Manager of Housing Unit 6, M.A. BAILEY, Senior Warden and others
Defendant:
SERGEANT HOBBS, SERGEANT WOODBURY, E. CLAY, AD Food Service Manager and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2018cv01209
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Gaddy v. Grosse et al
as 3:2018cv00081
Plaintiff:
Michael A. Gaddy
Defendant:
Thomas E. Grosse, II, Corey Thigpen, Zachary M. Riggan and others
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Raheem Jones v. Lieutenant Curry
as 18-6077
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RAHEEM L. JONES
Defendant - Appellee:
LIEUTENANT CURRY, Lieutenant/Building Supervisor, LIEUTENANT DYSON, Lieutenant/Building Supervisor, LIEUTENANT GRIFFEN, Lieutenant/Building Supervisor and others
Jones v. Curry et al
as 1:2017cv01216
Plaintiff:
Raheem L. Jones
Defendant:
Curry, Dyson, Griffen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thigpen v. USA
as 2:2016cv00339
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Jerrod Harvey Thigpen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Brandon Smith v. L. Ray
as 14-6686
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRANDON JEROD SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
L. RAY, Medical Administrator, B. ULEP, Doctor, CYNDY THIGPEN, Charge Nurse and others
Smith v. Ray et al
as 1:2014cv00122
Plaintiff:
Brandon Jerod Smith
Defendant:
L. Ray, B. Ulep, Cyndy Thigpen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thigpen v. Major et al
as 1:2010cv01947
Plaintiff:
Pressley C Thigpen
Defendant:
Simon Major and D Scott Cook
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Eric Coard, Bernard McFadden et al vs. Simon Major et al
as 4:2010cv01847
Plaintiff:
Eric Coard, Bernard McFadden, Shermell Ballard and others
Defendant:
Simon Major and D Scott Cook
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
