Cases 31 - 40 of 95
Brian Scott v. Harold Clarke
as 19-7239
Defendant / Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRIAN JEROME SCOTT
Abdul-Hasib Al-Musawwir v. Harold Clarke
as 19-6658
Petitioner / Appellant:
ABDUL-HASIB AL-MUSAWWIR
Respondent / Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections
Pierre Renoir v. Chris Davis
as 19-6342
Defendant / Appellee:
CHRIS DAVIS, U.S.A. Today, THOMAS A. SILVESTRI, Richmond Times-Dispatch, JEFFREY P. BEZOS, Washington Post and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PIERRE A. RENOIR
Cannon v. Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections
as 1:2018cv01071
Respondent:
Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections
Petitioner:
William David Cannon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00377
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Bethel, Jr v. Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections
as 3:2018cv00011
Petitioner:
Raymond Vaughn Bethel, Jr
Respondent:
Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Kelvin Canada v. Natasha Gregg
as 17-7249
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KELVIN A. CANADA
Defendant - Appellee:
NATASHA GREGG, MSA Dietitian for Virginia Dept. of Corrections, P. SCARBERRY, Head Food Director at Red Onion State Prison, S. STALLARD, Head Food Director at Wallens Ridge State Prison and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv00439
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lowe v. Commonwealth of Virginia Dept. of Corrections
as 3:2017cv00292
Petitioner:
Mark Lowe
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Virginia Dept. of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jerome Pulley v. Harold Clarke
as 17-6458
Petitioner - Appellant:
JEROME PULLEY
Respondent - Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Dept of Corrections
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.