Cases 1 - 10 of 177
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00215
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00400
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2023cv00100
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00103
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00240
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
BALL v. MILLER et al
as 5:2023cv00234
Plaintiff:
TRAVIS LEROY BALL
Defendant:
JUDGE B JR MILLER, SHERIFF DAN KILGORE, LT HEATH EPPINGER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MCNAIR v. VANSTONE et al
as 1:2023cv00080
Plaintiff:
OLLIE MCNAIR
Defendant:
RICHARD J VANSTONE, DENISE MARSHALL, KENNETH B HODGES, III and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MARTIN v. EMMONS et al
as 7:2023cv00063
Plaintiff:
KENDRICK R MARTIN
Defendant:
Warden S EMMONS, C MIMS, R SHROPSHIRE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SMITH v. BEASLEY
as 7:2023cv00061
Plaintiff:
ROY MANDELL SMITH
Defendant:
Lt AARON KIRK, Supervisor KEVIN CONNOLLY, NED M MIKULA and others
Respondent:
Warden JACOB BEASLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00147
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
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.
