Cases 11 - 20 of 712
Frye v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, The et al
as 5:2024cv01893
Plaintiff:
Marion Wade Frye
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Corrections, The, Director Bryan Sterling, Kenneth Nelson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Davison v. Mooney
as 3:2024cv00074
Plaintiff:
Michael Wade Davison
Defendant:
Edward C. Mooney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adam Hall v. DAC Prison
as 24-6261
Plaintiff:
ADAM WADE HALL, a/k/a Abdul Al Kareem Muhammad
Defendant:
DAC PRISON and RAYMOND BAILEY, Tabor CI Program Director
Clowers v. Gilliam et al
as 4:2024cv00251
Plaintiff:
Cameron David Clowers
Defendant:
Wade Gilliam, Saline County Detention Center and Taylor Beckwith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clowers v. Gilliam et al
as 5:2024cv05067
Plaintiff:
Cameron David Clowers
Defendant:
Captain Wade Gilliam, Taylor Beckwith and Saline County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. USA et al
as 4:2024cv00229
Plaintiff:
Derrick Wade Smith
Defendant:
USA, Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility, Pulaski County Sheriff's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WALLACE v. GAHAN et al
as 4:2024cv00045
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER WADE WALLACE, SR.
Defendant:
JEFF GAHAN, TODD BAILEY, HATFIELD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tavron v. Payne et al
as 2:2024cv00044
Plaintiff:
Marques Tavron
Defendant:
Dexter Payne, Mose Jackson, III, M Richarson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wade v. Hooper
as 3:2024cv00160
Plaintiff:
Troy D. Wade
Defendant:
Tim Hooper
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adam Hall v. Sergeant Truner
as 24-6148
Plaintiff:
ADAM WADE HALL
Defendant:
SERGEANT TRUNER and DAC OF PRISON
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.
