Cases 1 - 10 of 38
Steven Watkins v. Jim Rubenstein
as 14-6513
Petitioner - Appellee:
STEVEN A. WATKINS
Respondent - Appellant:
JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner of the Division of Corrections, BENITA F. MURPHY, Chairperson of the West Virginia Parole Board and DAVID M. TOLER, Supervising Parole Officer
Respondent:
ADRIAN HOKE, Warden at Huttonsville Correctional Center and MARVIN PLUMLEY, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center
Rogers v. Proctor et al
as 2:2013cv00072
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Rogers
Defendant:
Dr. David Proctor, Mark Baker, Tristan Tenney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Daye v. Proctor et al
as 1:2013cv00227
Plaintiff:
Cornell F. Daye
Defendant:
David Proctor, Mark Baker, Tristan Tenney and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Timothy Austin v. Adrian Hoke
as 13-6661
Petitioner - Appellant:
TIMOTHY JARED AUSTIN
Respondent - Appellee:
ADRIAN HOKE, Warden
Belcher v. Hoke
as 1:2012cv03714
Petitioner:
William David Belcher
Respondent:
Adrian Hoke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Watkins v. Plumley
as 2:2012cv01309
Petitioner:
Steven A. Watkins
Respondent:
Jim Rubenstein and Adrian Hoke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kenneth Mason v. Wexford Health Source
as 12-6479
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KENNETH MASON
Defendant - Appellee:
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES and ADRIAN HOKE, Warden
Defendant:
TRISTEN TENNEY, Med. Adm. and NURSES JANE DOE 1 THROUGH 8
Austin v. Hoke
as 1:2011cv00892
Petitioner:
Timothy Jared Austin
Respondent:
Adrian Hoke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Austin v. Hoke
as 2:2011cv00095
Petitioner:
Timothy Jared Austin
Respondent:
Adrian Hoke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Taylor v. Proctor et al
as 5:2011cv00159
Plaintiff:
Donald Lee Taylor
Defendant:
David Proctor, Tristan Tenney, Wexford Medical Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
