Cases 41 - 50 of 213
Washington v. Cannon
as 2:2019cv01929
Respondent:
Scarlett A. Wilson and Al Cannon
Petitioner:
Maurice D. Washington
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Sherlock v. Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center et al
as 5:2019cv01633
Defendant:
Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center and Aramark
Plaintiff:
Michael William Sherlock
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dmitry Pronin v. J. Cannon, Jr.
as 19-6781
Defendant / Appellee:
EVANS, JACOBS, SHERIFF J. AL CANNON, JR. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DMITRY PRONIN
Ameen Muhammad v. John Kozelski
as 19-6810
Defendant / Appellee:
COASTAL CAROLINA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, Medical Staff, JOHN KOZELSKI, Public Defender, JULIE J. ARMSTRONG, Clerk of Court and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
AMEEN ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Ameen Abdullah Muhammad, a/k/a Ameen Abdullah Muhammad-Bey
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv01811
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12117
Whitfield v. Cannon et al
as 6:2019cv01354
Petitioner:
Divine Naquann Whitfield and Shawn Sinclair
Respondent:
Sheriff Al Cannon and Charleston County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Whitfield v. Cannon
as 6:2019cv01353
Petitioner:
Divine Naquann Whitfield and Shawn Sinclair
Respondent:
Sheriff Al Cannon and Charleston County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Taylor v. Al Cannon Sheriffs Dept et al
as 0:2019cv01281
Plaintiff:
Dion Orlando Taylor and Dion O. Taylor
Defendant:
Al Cannon Sheriffs Dept, Stephanie Singelton, Al Cannon Detention Center and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00483
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00482
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.