Cases 31 - 40 of 51
Hester v. Bingham et al
as 3:2010cv00152
Plaintiff:
John Elbert Hester
Defendant:
Margarett Bingham and CMCF Staff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fisher v. Bingham et al
as 1:2009cv00312
Petitioner:
Charles Fisher
Respondent:
Margarett Bingham and Jim Hood
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. MS Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2009cv00786
Plaintiff:
James Johnson
Defendant:
MS Department of Corrections, Christopher Epps, Earnest Lee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Miller v. Epps et al
as 3:2009cv00743
Plaintiff:
Steve Joel Miller
Defendant:
Christopher Epps, Earnest Lee, Margarett Bingham and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
White v. Epps et al
as 3:2009cv00661
Plaintiff:
Tommy White, Sr.
Defendant:
Christopher B. Epps, Margarett Bingham, Unknown Lee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tucker v. Bingham et al
as 3:2009cv00600
Plaintiff:
Sandra Kaye Tucker
Defendant:
Margarett Bingham, MDOC, Gary Hamil and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rash v. Epps et al
as 3:2009cv00572
Plaintiff:
Annie Pearl Rash
Defendant:
Christopher B. Epps, E. L. Sparkman, Margarett Bingham and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bradley v. Bingham et al
as 4:2009cv00108
Plaintiff:
Billy Ray Bradley
Defendant:
Margarett Bingham and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tommy Jones v. Margarett Bingham
as 09-60311
Petitioner - Appellant:
TOMMY LEE JONES
Respondent - Appellee:
MARGARETT BINGHAM
McMahan v. United States of America
as 1:2009cv00274
Plaintiff:
Margarette S. McMahan
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
