Cases 41 - 50 of 165
Tudor v. Ishee
as 3:2023cv00435
Petitioner:
Travis Tudor
Respondent:
Todd E. Ishee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Ishee et al
as 1:2023cv00214
Plaintiff:
Andre David Williams
Defendant:
Todd E. Ishee, Ben Carver and Keven R. Chung
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
AMERSON v. ISHEE et al
as 1:2023cv00579
Petitioner:
PIERRE ALEXANDER AMERSON
Respondent:
TODD E. ISHEE and TIMOTHY D. MOOSE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Oxendine v. Moose et al
as 5:2023ct03196
Plaintiff:
Michael D. Oxendine
Defendant:
Timothy D. Moose, Todd E. Ishee, Kimberly D. Grande and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Letterlough v. Cothron et al
as 5:2023ct03192
Plaintiff:
Derrick Derrail Letterlough and Derrick Letterlough
Defendant:
David E. Cothron, Demetrius A. Clark and Todd E. Ishee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TYLER v. SMITH et al
as 1:2023cv00650
Plaintiff:
XAVAR TYLER
Defendant:
DAVID B. SMITH, THE FORSYTH COUNTY L.E.D.C, ANTON THURMAN MCALLISTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lunsford v. Jacob et al
as 5:2023ct03176
Plaintiff:
Jamel Tyree Lunsford
Defendant:
Warden Jacob, Warden Locklear, Todd E. Ishee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Matthew Safrit v. Todd Ishee
as 23-6503
Petitioner / Appellant:
MATTHEW A. SAFRIT
Respondent / Appellee:
TODD E. ISHEE
Keith Jones v. Crystal Atkinson
as 23-6529
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KEITH W. JONES
Defendant / Appellee:
CRYSTAL ATKINSON, CAPTAIN MCPHERSON, SGT HONEYCUTT and others
Defendant:
SGT GRAHAM, SGT JOLLY, SGT FLOYD and others
Willie Martin, III v. Mary Locklear
as 23-6499
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WILLIE LEE MARTIN, III
Defendant / Appellee:
MARY LOCKLEAR, TODD E. ISHEE and ROY COOPER
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.
