Cases 21 - 30 of 329
Williams v. Management and Training Corp. et al
as 5:2019cv00087
Defendant:
Warden F. Shaw, Deputy Warden T. Jackson, Case Manager T. Arbuthnot and others
Plaintiff:
Randy Charles Williams
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shelton v. State of Mississippi
as 3:2019cv00491
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Respondent:
State of Mississippi and EMCF Warden Frank Shaw
Petitioner:
Gregory T. Shelton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Armstrong v. Lars et al
as 3:2019cv00481
Defendant:
Unknown Moore, MTC, Sgt. Lars and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Max Armstrong
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Shaw
as 3:2019cv00543
Defendant:
Frank Shaw
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Roger Cal Johnson, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Holloway v. Shaw et al
as 3:2019cv00370
Defendant:
Warden Frank Shaw, John Does 1-100, Jane Does 1-100 and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Jason Holloway
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reeves v. Shaw
as 1:2019cv00029
Defendant:
Frank Shaw
Plaintiff:
Edmond Denton Reeves
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Armstrong v. Shaw et al
as 3:2019cv00015
Defendant:
Jane Does, Warden Frank Shaw, Sgt Unknown D. Chapman and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Anthony Armstrong
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Morton v. Shaw
as 3:2019cv00029
Defendant:
Warden Unknown Shaw
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Bryan Morton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Parks v. Shaw
as 1:2018cv00355
Plaintiff:
George Lee Parks
Defendant:
Frank Shaw
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
McMullen v. Hall et al
as 3:2018cv00838
Defendant:
Frank Shaw and Pelicia Hall
Plaintiff:
Steven McMullen
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
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.
