Cases 121 - 130 of 17,820
Philpott v. City of Stow et al.
as 5:2024cv00580
Plaintiff:
Michael Philpott
Defendant:
City of Stow, Stephan W. Miller, Samantha R. Wike and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bivins v. USA
as 5:2024cv00581
Petitioner:
Dramane D. Bivins, Jr.
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Pierce v. Robinson
as 4:2024cv00570
Petitioner:
James Eugene Pierce
Respondent:
Warden Norm Robinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WOODRUFF v. STATE OF OHIO
as 2:2024cv01416
Petitioner:
JONATHAN L. WOODRUFF
Respondent:
State of Ohio
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Smith v. Harris et al
as 1:2024cv00165
Plaintiff:
Christian Smith
Defendant:
Chae Harris, C.O. McKinley, C.O. J. Umstead and others
Interested Party:
State of Ohio
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Manns et al
as 2:2024cv01368
Plaintiff:
Alfred A. Johnson, Sr.
Defendant:
Officer T Manns, Officer Halib Kahn, Annette Chambers-Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fenderson v. United States of America
as 1:2024cv00566
Petitioner:
Markell Fenderson
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Peterson v. Obert et al.
as 1:2024cv00543
Plaintiff:
Isaac Peterson
Defendant:
Magistrate Lisa Obert, Bailiff Jim, Priest Dominic Coletta and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Peterson v. Landhandle
as 1:2024cv00542
Plaintiff:
Isaac Peterson
Defendant:
Sheriff Kasey Landhandle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Manning v. Henderson
as 3:2024cv00559
Plaintiff:
DeAmontae Manning
Defendant:
Kimberly Henderson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
