Cases 51 - 60 of 95
USA v. Joell Hanks, Jr.
as 16-1621
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JOELL LAWRENCE HANKS, JR.
Kirk v. Correction Corporation of America et al
as 1:2016cv00031
Plaintiff:
Jason Kirk
Defendant:
Correction Corporation of America, Damon Hiniger, Jason Medlin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moss v. USA (ASH)
as 3:2016cv00219
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Hank Earl Moss
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Kuot v. John Doe Medical Contractor et al
as 1:2016cv00006
Plaintiff:
Gai Kuot
Defendant:
Corrections Corporation of America, Damon Hininger, President of C.C.A. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In re: Henry Jordan
as 15-6311
Movant:
In re: HENRY JORDAN, aka Hank Jordan, aka Henry Broadwell, aka Douglas Henry Broadwell
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Gideon et al v. Wainwright et al
as 5:2015cv11454
Petitioner:
Sue Gideon, Timmy P. Monaco, Amber Lambert and others
Respondent:
Clarence Earl Wainwright, Michigan Department of Corrections and Michigan, State of
Glenard Thorne v. South Central Correctional Fa, et al
as 15-5382
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GLENARD C. THORNE
Defendant - Appellee:
SOUTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, "SCCF", MICHAEL PARRISH and DANIEL PRITCHARD
Defendant:
BRENDA PEVAHOUSE and HANK INMAN
Cope v. The Mens Healing Place et al
as 3:2015cv00253
Plaintiff:
William Douglas Eli Cope, Jr.
Defendant:
Healing Place for Men, Karyn Hascel, Jay Davidson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv01007
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Jenkins v. Tennessee Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2014cv00053
Plaintiff:
William L. Jenkins
Defendant:
Corrections Corporation of America, Derrick Schofield, Arvil Chapman 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.
