Cases 11 - 20 of 27
Woods v. Alabama, State of et al
as 2:2014cv00694
Petitioner:
Jamal Roydrick Woods
Respondent:
Alabama, State of and Carter F Davenport
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Abrams v. Davenport et al (INMATE 3)
as 1:2014cv00141
Plaintiff:
Jamie Alan Abrams
Defendant:
Carter F. Davenport and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Malloy v. Davenport, et al. (INMATE 3)
as 2:2013cv00784
Plaintiff:
Arthur Brennan Malloy
Defendant:
Carter F. Davenport and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Soliz-Bresino v. Alabama Dept of Corrections et al
as 1:2013cv01437
Petitioner:
Jose Luiz Soliz-Bresino
Respondent:
Alabama Dept of Corrections, Carter F. Davenport and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hails v. Davenport et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2013cv00184
Plaintiff:
Antuan S. Hails
Defendant:
Carter F. Davenport and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hayes v. Davenport et al (INMATE 1)
as 3:2012cv00653
Plaintiff:
Zebedee Hayes
Defendant:
Carter F. Davenport and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Woods v. Davenport et al
as 5:2012cv02506
Petitioner:
Jamal Roydrick Woods
Respondent:
Carter F Davenport and Attorney General for the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Malloy v. Davenport et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2012cv00496
Plaintiff:
Arthur Brennan Malloy
Defendant:
Carter F. Davenport and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Davis v. Davenport et al
as 4:2012cv02044
Petitioner:
Glennie Dee Davis
Respondent:
Carter F Davenport and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bonds v. Davenport et al (INMATE 2)
as 1:2012cv00376
Plaintiff:
James Willis Bonds
Defendant:
Carter F. Davenport , State of Alabama and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
