Cases 11 - 19 of 19
Marcoon v. Tucker et al
as 3:2017cv00940
Plaintiff:
Walter Don Marcoon
Defendant:
Randy Tucker, Brian Watson, Madison County and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2017cv00071
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Tyler v. United States Marshal Service et al
as 3:2016cv00706
Plaintiff:
Sade Michelle Tyler
Defendant:
United States Marshal Service and Madison County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
White v. Madison County Detention Center
as 3:2011cv00494
Plaintiff:
Marvin Jarome White
Defendant:
Madison County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ivory v. Madison County Detention Center et al
as 3:2009cv00272
Plaintiff:
Cedrick Lamarcus Ivory
Defendant:
Madison County Detention Center, Toby Trowbridge and Brian Watson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Abernathy v. Madison County Detention Center et al
as 3:2009cv00166
Plaintiff:
Edwin Le-Dale Abernathy
Defendant:
Madison County Detention Center, Toby Trowbridge, Charles McNeil and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Virgil v. Copiah Cty Shrf Dept, et al
as 08-60662
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT G VIRGIL
Defendant - Appellee:
COPIAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CITY OF HAZLEHURST POLICE DEPARTMENT, SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI NARCOTICS UNIT and others
Virgil v. Copiah Cty Shrf Dept, et al
as 08-60275
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT G VIRGIL
Defendant - Appellee:
COPIAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CITY OF HAZLEHURST POLICE DEPARTMENT, SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI NARCOTICS UNIT and others
Virgil v. Copiah County Sheriff's Department et al
as 3:2007cv00181
Plaintiff:
Robert Virgil
Defendant:
Copiah County Sheriff's Department, City of Hazlehurst Police Dept., Southwest Mississippi Narcotics Unit 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.
