Cases 31 - 40 of 75
Bias v. Boyd et al
as 2:2010cv02202
Petitioner:
Jerry James Bias
Respondent:
Louis Boyd and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smitherman v. Boyd et al
as 2:2010cv00250
Petitioner:
Andrew Smitherman
Respondent:
Louis Boyd and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Denton v. Boyd et al
as 3:2010cv00847
Petitioner:
Richard Cornell Denton
Respondent:
Louis Boyd and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Neil Walker v. State of Alabama, et al
as 10-11293
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NEIL WALKER
Respondent - Appellee:
STATE OF ALABAMA, ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDON & PAROLES and LOUIS BOYD, Warden
Burns v. Boyd
as 1:2009cv00834
Petitioner:
Thomas Burns
Respondent:
Louis Boyd
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ray v. Allen et al
as 4:2009cv02523
Petitioner:
Michael Allen Ray
Respondent:
Richard Allen, Louis Boyd and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Miles v. Boyd et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2009cv01095
Plaintiff:
Don Miles, Sr
Defendant:
Louis Boyd and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ray v. Allen et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2009cv01012
Plaintiff:
Michael Allen Ray
Defendant:
Richard Allen, Louis Boyd and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hines v. Boyd et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2009cv00962
Plaintiff:
Ronald Hines
Defendant:
Louis Boyd and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Taylor v. Boyd et al (INMATE1)
as 2:2009cv00900
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Wayne Taylor
Defendant:
Louis Boyd and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
