Cases 1 - 10 of 31
Casey v. Alabama, State of et al
as 6:2023cv00950
Petitioner:
Brian D Casey, Sr
Respondent:
Alabama, State of and White
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Carstarphen v. Pipes
as 1:2023cv00004
Petitioner:
Andre Maurice Carstarphen
Respondent:
Wesley Pipes
Not Classified By Court:
Andre Maurice Carstarphen, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Foster v. Ivey et al (INMATE 3)
as 3:2022cv00070
Plaintiff:
Danny Foster, Sr.
Defendant:
Joseph H. Headley, Kay Ivey, Randolph County Circuit Court and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lewis v. Calhoun et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2021cv00364
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons, Sonya Thompson, CMC Barnes and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Pickett v. Butler et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2021cv00315
Defendant:
Louis Vinson Franklin, Sr., R. Hightower, Tom T. Anderson and others
Plaintiff:
Joe Ranger Pickett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Aldissi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv01074
Plaintiff:
Matt Aldissi and Mahmoud Aldissi
Defendant:
Hugh Hurwitz, Alan Cohen, Andre Matevousian and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Walker v. Peters
as 1:2020cv00531
Petitioner:
Ernest Lee Walker, Sr.
Respondent:
Kenneth Peters
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Casey v. Smith
as 6:2020cv01078
Respondent:
Nick Smith
Petitioner:
Brian Darnell Casey, Sr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Stokes v. US Department of Justice et al
as 1:2020cv00602
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, US Department of Justice and Cheron Nash
Plaintiff:
Terence L Stokes, Sr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Bowman v. Wood (INMATE 1)
as 2:2019cv01041
Plaintiff:
Thomas Bowman
Defendant:
Walter J. Wood, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
