Cases 41 - 50 of 211
Stapleton v. Noel et al
as 4:2013cv00139
Plaintiff:
Boss Stapleton
Defendant:
Faye Noel, Richard Steward, Christopher Epps and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moore v. Epps et al
as 1:2013cv00130
Petitioner:
Richard Moore
Respondent:
Christopher Epps and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Lee et al
as 4:2013cv00112
Plaintiff:
Anthony J. Edwards
Defendant:
Earnest Lee, Pamela Robinson, Christopher Epps and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Epps et al
as 4:2013cv00091
Plaintiff:
Bennie L. Williams
Defendant:
Christopher Epps and Emmitt L. Sparkman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moore v. Epps et al
as 1:2013cv00094
Plaintiff:
Richard Moore
Defendant:
Christopher Epps, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Brand Huffman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wall v. Epps et al
as 3:2013cv00077
Petitioner:
Jerome Wall
Respondent:
Christopher Epps and E. L. Sparkman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Andrews v. Davenport et al
as 4:2013cv00043
Plaintiff:
Kolby Andrews
Defendant:
Davenport, Rogers, Ron Reagon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Richardson v. Epps et al
as 1:2013cv00044
Petitioner:
Michael Shane Richardson
Respondent:
Christopher Epps and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Richardson v. Epps
as 1:2013mc00001
Petitioner:
Michael Shane Richardson
Respondent:
Christopher Epps
Dobbs v. Epps et al
as 4:2013cv00029
Plaintiff:
Carl Dobbs
Defendant:
Christopher Epps, Emmitt L. Sparkman, Earnest Lee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
