Cases 11 - 20 of 947
TERRELL v. WHATLEY et al
as 1:2024cv00059
Plaintiff:
WILLIE JAMES TERRELL, JR
Defendant:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TABATHA WHATLEY, WARDEN BENJAMIN FORD, TARMARSHE SMITH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00123
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00046
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
MUTAZZ v. OLIVER et al
as 5:2024cv00107
Plaintiff:
SAID MUTAZZ
Defendant:
TYRONE OLIVER, GREGORY SAMPSON, TIMOTHY SALES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SMITH v. MCDANIEL et al
as 5:2024cv00069
Plaintiff:
ORLANDO SMITH
Defendant:
DEPUTY WARDEN MCDANIEL, DEPUTY WARDEN JONES, FULLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
FOSTER v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY et al
as 5:2024cv00066
Plaintiff:
BRYAN ERNEST FOSTER
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, YES CARE CLIENT SERVICES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SMITH v. SAMPSON
as 5:2024cv00048
Petitioner:
EVERETT SMITH
Respondent:
GREGORY SAMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SMILEY v. SMITH
as 1:2024cv00017
Petitioner:
Marcus Smiley
Respondent:
WARDEN TARMARSHE SMITH and ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF GEORGIA (NOTICE)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hallman v. Smith et al
as 1:2024cv00015
Plaintiff:
DERRICK HALLMAN
Defendant:
WARDEN OTIS SMITH, JONES and SABRINA PORTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SMITH v UNNAMED RESPONDENT
as 5:2024cv00030
Petitioner:
MARVIN SMITH
Respondent:
UNNAMED RESPONDENT
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.
