Civil Rights Cases filed in Georgia
Cases 11 - 20 of 29
MOSS v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 5:2019cv00227
Plaintiff: SAMUEL MOSS
Defendant: JACK RANDALL SAULS, TREVONZA BOBBITT, Clay Nix and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOTSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 5:2019cv00225
Defendant: JACK RANDALL SAULS, TREVONZA BOBBITT, CLAY NIX and others
Plaintiff: TIMOTHY DOTSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GHIDEN v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 5:2019cv00197
Defendant: JACK RANDY SAULS, CLAY NIX, RICKY MYRICK and others
Plaintiff: TIMOTHY GHIDEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HARMON v. TOBY
as 5:2019cv00008
Defendant: WARDEN ANNETTIA TOBY
Plaintiff: RANDY JENKINS HARMON, JR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. BARROW et al
as 7:2018cv00192
Plaintiff: LIN E DAVIS
Defendant: Nurse ROBYN BARROW, THOMAS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, RON JAMES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FULGHAM v. TOBY, et al
as 5:2018cv00354
Defendant: ANNETTIA TOBY and GEORGE IVEY
Plaintiff: RODNEY SHANE FULGHAM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fulgham v. Toby et al
as 1:2018cv00163
Defendant: Annettia Toby and George Ivey
Plaintiff: Rodney Shane Fulgham
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Holmes v. Toby et al
as 1:2018cv01565
Plaintiff: Recardo Holmes
Defendant: Toby, Ivey, Hill and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. GDC Medical Contractors et al
as 1:2017cv04226
Plaintiff: Braja Smith
Defendant: GDC Medical Contractors, Fowlkes, Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Musgrove v. Prodgers et al
as 1:2014cv00805
Plaintiff: Dahlen J. Musgrove
Defendant: Toby Prodgers, Barry E. Morgan and Cobb County Magistrate
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983

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.


Why Is My Information Online?