Cases 1 - 10 of 3,976
THOMAS v. USA
as 1:2024cv00523
Petitioner:
JAMIE DUANE THOMAS
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Thomas v. Dotson
as 1:2024cv00668
Petitioner:
Timothy James Thomas
Respondent:
Chadwick Dotson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
KENNEDY v. USA
as 1:2024cv00510
Petitioner:
WESLEY THOMAS KENNEDY
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Pierce v. South Carolina Department of Corrections
as 2:2024cv03574
Plaintiff:
Thomas Giniski Pierce
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Royal II v. Central Maryland Correctional Facility
as 1:2024cv01775
Plaintiff:
Thomas C. Royal II
Defendant:
Central Maryland Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Huffman v. Huff et al
as 7:2024cv00383
Plaintiff:
Jullian Andrew Pres Huffman
Defendant:
Neil Huff, Jennifer Lester, Brett Hall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
THOMAS v. SMITH
as 1:2024cv00483
Plaintiff:
DALVECCIO TREMAINE THOMAS
Defendant:
SERGEANT SMITH, MR. PETRELLI, Lt. T. CHAVIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Frye v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, The et al
as 5:2024cv01893
Plaintiff:
Marion Wade Frye
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Corrections, The, Director Bryan Sterling, Kenneth Nelson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Larry Blakney v. Merrick Garland
as 24-6377
Petitioner:
LARRY BLAKNEY
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of U.S. and WARDEN THOMAS SCARANTINO
Lipscomb v. Slonaker et al
as 7:2024cv00250
Plaintiff:
Daniel Thomas Lipscomb
Defendant:
Katlynn Slonaker, Caroline Helsley, Amber Dopkowski and others
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.
