Cases 21 - 30 of 165
Mason v. The City of Macon et al
as 3:2019cv00066
Defendant:
John and Jane Does, The City of Macon and Buzz McGuire
Plaintiff:
Lucious Mason
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
McGee v. Mason
as 3:2019cv00453
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Defendant:
Victor Mason
Plaintiff:
Larry McGee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Jackson v. Mason
as 3:2019cv00375
Plaintiff:
Calvin L. Jackson
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Defendant:
Victor Mason
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Lionel B. Kyles v. Hinds County Detention Division Services et al
as 3:2019cv00440
Defendant:
Warden R. Fielder, Hinds County Detention Division Services and Sheriff Victor P. Mason
Plaintiff:
Lionel B. Kyles
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cleveland v. Hinds County, Mississippi et al
as 3:2019cv00486
Defendant:
John and Jane Does 1-100, Victor Mason and Hinds County, Mississippi
Plaintiff:
Samantha Cleveland
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Veal v. Hinds County, Mississippi et al
as 3:2019cv00485
Defendant:
Sheriff Victor Mason, Hinds County, Mississippi and John and Jane Does 1-100
Plaintiff:
Landon James Veal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clarke v. Mason
as 3:2019cv00374
Plaintiff:
Elton Lawrence Clarke
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Defendant:
Victor Mason
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Tarver v. Mason
as 3:2019cv00250
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Respondent:
Victor Mason
Petitioner:
Brandon Tarver
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv00830
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Hinton, Jr. v. Mason et al
as 3:2019cv00192
Defendant:
Sheriff Victor Mason and Hinds County Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Henry Hinton, Jr.
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.
