Cases 21 - 30 of 168
Merrill v. USA
as 4:2023cv00091
Petitioner:
William Argyle Merrill
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Williams v. USA
as 4:2023cv00054
Petitioner:
Cody Miller Williams
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Belcher v. Little et al
as 1:2022cv00509
Petitioner:
Camron Belcher
Respondent:
Little, Richardson, Pattriccio and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Belcher v. Eaton et al
as 1:2022cv00469
Petitioner:
Camron Belcher
Respondent:
Dylan A. Eaton, Brad Little, Lawrence Wasden and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stinson v. Young, et al.
as 1:2022cv00451
Petitioner:
Daniel Stinson
Respondent:
Dr. Young, Tonja Riedy and William Rogers
Defendant:
Warden Richardson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Atencio et al
as 1:2022cv00346
Plaintiff:
Kent Williams
Defendant:
Director Atencio, Director Tewalt, Deputy Director Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hernandez v. McKinley, et al.
as 1:2022cv00171
Plaintiff:
Sebastian Hernandez
Defendant:
James McKinley, James Boparao, Quintin Price and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Paralegal Lifang et al
as 1:2022cv00052
Plaintiff:
Kent Williams
Defendant:
Paralegal Lifang, Robbert Wheiler, Warden Richardson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Corizon Incorporated et al
as 1:2022cv00051
Plaintiff:
Joseph Williams
Defendant:
Corizon Incorporated and Director IDOC Josh Tewalt
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Johnson v. Williams
as 1:2021cv00467
Plaintiff:
Eric Swain Johnson
Defendant:
Brandon Williams
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.
