Cases 1 - 10 of 12
C.J. v. Jones et al
as 2:2023cv00063
Plaintiff:
C. J.
Defendant:
David Jones, Matthew Currence and Robert Arnold
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
A.D. v. Demetro et al
as 2:2022cv00432
Plaintiff:
A. D.
Defendant:
Anthony Demetro, David Jones, Matthew Currence and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
West v. Jones et al
as 7:2019cv00819
Defendant:
Mr. David Jones, Linda Vaughn, Brad Holt and others
Plaintiff:
Jessie James West
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson et al v. Richland County Sheriff's Office et al
as 3:2017cv00838
Plaintiff:
DaJour Johnson and Dwayne Cunningham
Defendant:
Richland County Sheriff's Office , South Carolina Highway Patrol , Curtis Wilson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas Patten v. NC Dept of Public Safety
as 15-1896
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS PATTEN, LESLIE TEACHEY, RYAN TURNER and others
Defendant - Appellee:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, FRANK L. PERRY, LAFAYETTE HALL and others
Patten et al v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety et al
as 5:2015ct03118
Plaintiff:
Thomas Patten , Leslie Teachey , Ryan Turner and others
Defendant:
Frank L. Perry, Lafayette Hall, Jeffrey Marks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Baker v. Cannon et al
as 2:2015cv01471
Plaintiff:
Garland Rivers Baker
Defendant:
Grant Cannon , David Jones and Turbeville, the Town of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
David Jones v. Harold Clarke
as 14-7191
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID JONES
Respondent - Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
Lester v. Jones
as 5:2014cv10134
Petitioner:
James C. Lester
Respondent:
David Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lester v. Jones
as 2:2014cv10134
Petitioner:
James C. Lester
Respondent:
David Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
