Cases 1 - 10 of 173
LOCKETT v. ARAMARK et al
as 1:2024cv01005
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER LOCKETT
Defendant:
ARAMARK, FOX, FOSTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LOCKETT v. VANCE et al
as 2:2024cv00199
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER LOCKETT
Defendant:
VANCE and CENTURION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LOCKETT v. HARMON et al
as 1:2024cv00064
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER LOCKETT
Defendant:
A. HARMON, GRAY, B. LUNSFORD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
OWENS et al v. CARTER et al
as 1:2022cv01613
Plaintiff:
DAVID OWENS, DAVID HOWARD, MICHAEL WILSON and others
Defendant:
ERIC J. HOLCOMB, ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., DAUSS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LOCKETT v. REAGLE
as 1:2022cv00053
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER LOCKETT
Respondent:
REAGLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SMITH et al v. SAINT PAUL TRAVELERS COMPANY INC. et al
as 1:2019cv00598
Defendant:
BOB STELLER, MOBILE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT INC., EDDIE CURRAN and others
Plaintiff:
EDMOND HUDMOND SMITH, IV and LOUIS HOLGER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
LOCKETT v. SUPERINTENDENT
as 3:2017cv00119
Miscellaneou:
BRANCHVILLE CF (Court Use Only)
Petitioner:
WARREN LOCKETT
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GEORGE v. LOCKETT
as 2:2016cv00230
Petitioner:
LINDSAY NATHANIEL GEORGE
Respondent:
CHARLES L. LOCKETT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
LOCKETT v. USA
as 2:2016cv00161
Petitioner:
LEVANDER CHARLES LOCKETT
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
STEVENS v. LOCKETT
as 2:2015cv00422
Respondent:
CHARLES L. LOCKETT
Petitioner:
LAWRENCE STEVENS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
