Cases 1 - 10 of 146
Hill v. Taylor et al (INMATE 1)
as 3:2024cv00224
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Lamar Hill
Defendant:
Heath Taylor and Steve Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hill v. Johnson et al (INMATE 2)
as 3:2024cv00018
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Lamar Hill
Defendant:
Steve Johnson, Dana Howell, Rick Chancey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Holifield v. Hamm et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2023cv00729
Plaintiff:
Eric Lamar Holifield
Defendant:
John Q. Hamm and Cheryl Price
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00614
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Murray v. Elmore County Jail (INMATE 3)
as 2:2023cv00590
Plaintiff:
Kedrick Lamar Murray
Defendant:
Elmore County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cunningham v. Hamm et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2023cv00564
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Cunningham and Dewayne Scott Cunningham
Defendant:
John Q. Hamm, David Lamar, Lt. Randolph and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00547
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Coleman v. United States of America (INMATE 4)
as 2:2023cv00513
Plaintiff:
Bruce Lamar Coleman
Defendant:
Alan Cohen and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00493
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Lamar et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2023cv00432
Plaintiff:
Dexter Jackson
Defendant:
David Lamar and Steven T. Marshall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
