Cases 1 - 10 of 654
Smith v. Brown
as 3:2024cv00062
Petitioner:
Derrick A. Smith, Jr.
Respondent:
Warden Brown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Butler et al v. Dash
as 5:2024cv03188
Plaintiff:
Phillip Mitchell Butler and Charles Gene Butler
Defendant:
Judge Derrick F. Dash
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr (Other)
Butler et al v. Sergeant Kathyn M. Platt et al
as 5:2024cv02848
Defendant:
Sergeant Kathyn M. Platt, Katlyn M Platt, CA Burns and others
Plaintiff:
Phillip Mitchell Butler and Charles Gene Butler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr (Other)
Edwards v. Mathena et al
as 7:2024cv00296
Plaintiff:
Michael Derrick Edwards
Defendant:
Randall C. Mathena, Lois Fegan, John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Collins v. Barnes et al
as 5:2024cv00108
Plaintiff:
Derrick D. Collins
Defendant:
FNU Barnes, FNU Isenhour and John Does 1 through 5
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Derrick McRae v. Eddie Buffaloe
as 24-6350
Petitioner:
DERRICK JOVAN MCRAE
Respondent:
EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR., Secretary, N.C. Department of Public Safety
Smith, Jr. v. Warden, FCI Gilmer
as 5:2024cv00066
Petitioner:
Derrick Smith, Jr.
Respondent:
Warden, FCI Gilmer
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Letterlough v. North Carolina
as 5:2024hc02072
Petitioner:
Derrick Derrail Letterlough
Respondent:
North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LETTERLOUGH v. NORTH CAROLINA
as 1:2024cv00284
Petitioner:
DERRICK DERRAIL LETTERLOUGH
Respondent:
NORTH CAROLINA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fishburne v. Lavern Cohen
as 0:2024cv01210
Petitioner:
Derrick Fishburne
Respondent:
Lavern Cohen
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.
