Cases 61 - 70 of 108
Noland v. Easterling et al
as 1:2010cv01297
Plaintiff:
Duane E. Noland
Defendant:
Joe Easterling, Jack Carter and Deanne Mills
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moore et al v. Mossbarger et al
as 3:2010cv00440
Plaintiff:
David Cash Moore, Wayne Bailey, Michael Easterling and others
Defendant:
James W Mossbarger, Thomas R Day, Larry D Hodges and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hill v. Lawson et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2010cv00824
Plaintiff:
Terrance D. Hill
Defendant:
Nathaniel Lawson, Anthony Askew and Easterling Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Henderson v. Lawson et al (INMATE2)
as 2:2010cv00823
Plaintiff:
Travis C. Henderson
Defendant:
Nathaniel Lawson, Anthony Askew and Easterling Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reed et al v. Turner et al
as 1:2010cv01236
Plaintiff:
Henry Joseph Thunder Reed, Richard Gauna and Ricky Morgan
Defendant:
Ronald Turner, Joe Easterling, Danny Dodd and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Arthur Hunter v. Easterling, et al
as 10-13777
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ARTHUR LEE HUNTER
Defendant - Appellee:
EASTERLING, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and ALFA INSURANCE COMPANY
Reed v. Turner et al
as 1:2010cv01126
Plaintiff:
Henry Joseph Thunder Reed
Defendant:
Ronald Turner and Joseph Easterling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Noland v. Easterling et al
as 3:2010cv00486
Plaintiff:
Duane E. Noland
Defendant:
Joe Easterling, Jack Carter and Deanne Mills
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hale v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
as 1:2010cv01113
Plaintiff:
Derrick Hale
Defendant:
Corrections Corporation of America, Joe Easterling, Raye Swinea and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Franklin v. Easterling et al
as 1:2010cv01108
Plaintiff:
Cletus John Robert Franklin
Defendant:
Joseph G. Easterling, Barbara Buford and Kennith Beard
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.
