Cases 31 - 40 of 76
Wright v. Coleman
as 2:2012cv02643
Plaintiff:
Martez Wright
Defendant:
James E. Coleman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Holcomb v. Coleman et al
as 2:2012cv02620
Plaintiff:
Luegene Holcomb
Defendant:
James E. Coleman, Shelby County Division of Corrections, Shelby County Division of Corrections Grievance Dept. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Shelby Co. Jail et al
as 2:2012cv02457
Plaintiff:
Curtis Jerome Thomas
Defendant:
Shelby Co. Jail, A.C. Wharton, Mark H. Luttrell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hughes v. Correct Care Solutions et al
as 2:2012cv02403
Plaintiff:
Steven Alan Hughes
Defendant:
Correct Care Solutions, Health Care Services and James E. Coleman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Caery v. Shelby County et al
as 2:2012cv02389
Plaintiff:
Frederick L. Caery
Defendant:
Shelby Co. Dept. of Corr., Minus Adams, Karen Mitchell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pittman v. Hill et al
as 2:2012cv02383
Plaintiff:
Melvin L. Pittman
Defendant:
D. Hill, John Delano, A. Wooten and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Benson v. Luttrell et al
as 2:2012cv02313
Plaintiff:
Ricky Benson
Defendant:
Mark H. Luttrell, Jr, James E. Coleman, Tonya Beasley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Benson v. State of Tennessee et al
as 2:2012cv02300
Plaintiff:
Ricky Benson
Defendant:
State of Tennessee, Shelby County Government, Mark H. Luttrell, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parson v. Shelby County Dept. of Corr. et al
as 2:2012cv02292
Plaintiff:
Donny Parson
Defendant:
Shelby County Dept. of Corr., Ollie Watts, Loggins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cole v. Shelby Co. Dept. of Corrections et al
as 2:2012cv02117
Plaintiff:
Anthony Cole
Defendant:
Shelby Co. Dept. of Corrections, Correct Care Solutions, Randolf 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.
