Cases 31 - 40 of 185
LeCron v. SFF Hazelton
as 3:2022cv00142
Petitioner:
Elizabeth Ridge LeCron
Respondent:
SFF Hazelton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Hedrick v. Jividen et al
as 5:2022cv00175
Plaintiff:
Tanner Hedrick
Defendant:
Betsy Jividen, West Virginia Department of Correction an Rehabilitation, John Anderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Crawford v. USP Hazelton
as 5:2022cv00162
Plaintiff:
Shakeem Crawford
Defendant:
USP Hazelton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Workman v. Tygart Valley Regional Jail
as 5:2022cv00149
Plaintiff:
Samuel Workman
Defendant:
Tygart Valley Regional Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Egan v. McCaffrey
as 3:2022cv00114
Petitioner:
Crystal Egan
Respondent:
Mr. McCaffrey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Gist v. Salem Correction Center & Jail
as 5:2022cv00117
Plaintiff:
Alvin Gist
Defendant:
Salem Correction Center & Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Curtis v. McCaffrey
as 3:2022cv00092
Petitioner:
Latasha Curtis
Respondent:
Warden McCaffrey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Thomas v. McCaffery
as 3:2022cv00089
Petitioner:
Brittany Dawn Thomas
Respondent:
R McCaffery
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Justice v. McCaffrey
as 3:2022cv00080
Petitioner:
Savanah Pauline Justice
Respondent:
Warden McCaffrey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Lose v. West Virginia Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al
as 5:2022cv00045
Plaintiff:
Robert William Lose, Jr.
Defendant:
West Virginia Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation and NCRJ Correction Staffing
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
