Cases 1 - 10 of 35
Ross v. State of Tennessee (Public Defender Office) et al
as 2:2022cv02640
Plaintiff:
Richard Ross
Defendant:
State of Tennessee (Public Defender Office) and Memphis Mental Health Institute
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ray v. Henderson County, Tennessee et al
as 1:2022cv01094
Plaintiff:
Patrick Ray
Defendant:
Henderson County, Tennessee, Judge Steve Beal, 26th District Public Defender's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Richardson (El Bey) v. Internal Revenue Service et al
as 2:2021cv02178
Defendant:
Fayette County, Amy P. Wierch, TN Department of Revenue and others
Plaintiff:
Erique Jermaine Richardson (El Bey)
McClain v. Hamilton et al
as 1:2019cv01085
Defendant:
John Hamilton and Public Defenders office
Plaintiff:
James Lee McClain
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McClain v. District Attorney Office et al
as 1:2019cv01007
Defendant:
District Attorney Office, Mitchell Raines, Public Defender and others
Plaintiff:
James Lee McClain
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rodgers v. Prosecutor et al
as 2:2018cv02742
Petitioner:
Frederick Shovell Rodgers
Respondent:
Public Defender, Judge Cambell and Prosecutor
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Lassiter v. State of Tennessee, et al
as 2:2018cv02304
Plaintiff:
Richard A. Lassiter
Defendant:
State of Tennessee, Memphis Police Department, Shelby County Public Defender's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv02235
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv02768
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv02479
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
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.
