Cases 1 - 10 of 61
WATSON v. SOUTH GEORGIA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
as 1:2023cv00172
Petitioner:
HUGH ZACHARY WATSON
Respondent:
SOUTH GEORGIA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HUGHES v. CALDWELL et al
as 5:2023cv00269
Plaintiff:
HARLINGTON HUGHES
Defendant:
ANTIONE CALDWELL and GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BROXTON v. LAWSON et al
as 7:2020cv00192
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM L BROXTON
Defendant:
HUGH LAWSON and UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LUCAS v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2020cv00097
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER HUGH LUCAS
Defendant:
NURSE HALL, NURSE PRACTIONER LINDSEY, GEORGIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SADLER v. ELBERT COUNTY PROBATION OFFICE et al
as 3:2019cv00062
Defendant:
BOWEN and ELBERT COUNTY PROBATION OFFICE
Plaintiff:
HUGH SADLER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOGAN v. STATE OF GEORGIA
as 5:2019cv00135
Plaintiff:
RICKY LAMAR HOGAN
Defendant:
STATE OF GEORGIA, EDMUND J BAZAR, JR, HUGH SMITH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BANKS v. HATCHER et al
as 4:2019cv00010
Defendant:
Lieutenant TIFFANY PRICE, LETICIA P BELL-BURKS, Lieutenamt JULIE THORNTON and others
Plaintiff:
ANGELO BERNARD BANKS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
EVANS v. BOSWELL, et al
as 3:2018cv00004
Plaintiff:
NORRIS D EVANS
Defendant:
E J BOSWELL and HUGH V WINGFIELD, III
Cross_defendant:
J SKY DESS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HARRIS v. SEMINOLE COUNTY JAIL et al
as 1:2017cv00093
Plaintiff:
TOMMY HARRIS
Defendant:
SEMINOLE COUNTY JAIL, DALE SWANNER, HUGH LAWSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TEEMS v. WINGFIELD et al
as 5:2017cv00171
Plaintiff:
JIMMY RAY TEEMS
Defendant:
HUGH V WINGFIELD, III, ROSEMARY F PHILLIPS, ANDREW G SIMS 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.
