Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Hines v. St Clair Correctional Facility et al
as 2:2024cv00690
Plaintiff:
Julius A Hines
Defendant:
St Clair Correctional Facility, Dean Beauford, Antoine Price and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Mitchell et al
as 1:2024cv00234
Petitioner:
Tony Lee Smith
Respondent:
Phillip Mitchell and A.D.O.C.
Defendant:
Chadwick Crabtree
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Crafton v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2024cv00008
Plaintiff:
Rebecca Crafton
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, John Q. Hamm, Wendy Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rives v. Hamm et al
as 4:2023cv01659
Petitioner:
Walter Richard Rives
Respondent:
John Q. Hamm, Phillip Mitchell and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. Mitchell, et al
as 4:2023cv00154
Plaintiff:
Jon L Johnson
Defendant:
CO1 Phillip Mitchell, John Hamm, Capt. Gram and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Dent et al
as 4:2022cv00752
Plaintiff:
Jon L Johnson
Defendant:
Derrick M Dent, Phillip Mitchell, Roderick L Gadson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Blount v. Dunn et al
as 5:2022cv00039
Plaintiff:
Marquis Keonta Blount
Defendant:
Jefferson Dunn, Dennis Stamper, Matthew Brand and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Faulkner v. Burns et al
as 4:2022cv00012
Plaintiff:
Quandarian Faulkner
Defendant:
Brandon Burns, Russell Jones, Phillip Mitchell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Inge v. Echols et al
as 7:2012cv02495
Plaintiff:
Derrick Inge
Defendant:
Andrew Echols, Fred Rice, Tyree Murphy and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
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.
