Cases 41 - 50 of 2,072
Ofori v. Clarke et al
as 7:2023cv00683
Plaintiff:
Terry K. Ofori
Defendant:
T.B. Smith, B.J. Ravizee, M.D. Powers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hawley v. Clarke
as 7:2023cv00659
Petitioner:
Garry Hawley
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thompson v. Dotson
as 7:2023cv00657
Petitioner:
Eugene L. Thompson
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke and Chadwick S. Dotson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Butts v. Clarke
as 1:2023cv01396
Petitioner:
Corey Lee Butts
Respondent:
Harold W Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kenneth Duodu v. Chadwick Dotson
as 23-7009
Petitioner / Appellant:
KENNETH OTENG DUODU
Respondent / Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE and CHADWICK DOTSON
Askari Lumumba v. Chadwick Dotson
as 23-7011
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ASKARI DANSO MS LUMUMBA
Defendant / Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, JOSEPH WALTERS, DAVID ANDERSON and others
Wilson v. Clarke
as 2:2023cv00506
Petitioner:
Christopher E. Wilson
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Shebri Dillon v. Harold Clarke
as 23-6995
Petitioner / Appellant:
SHEBRI STACY DILLON
Respondent / Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, VDOC
Hawley v. Clarke
as 2:2023cv00498
Petitioner:
Garry Hawley
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Roger Morse v. VDOC
as 23-2039
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROGER LEE MORSE
Defendant / Appellee:
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HAROLD W. CLARKE, in his individual and official capacity as Director for the Virginia Department of Corrections, PATRICIA S. BISHOP, In her individual and official capacity as Director for the Virginia Retirement System and others
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.
