Cases 11 - 20 of 435
Britford v. Davis et al
as 7:2023cv00707
Petitioner:
Randy E Britford
Respondent:
Gwendolyn Davis, Easterling Correctional Facility and Steve Marshall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Babers et al
as 4:2023cv00449
Petitioner:
Antonio Tevereus Smith
Respondent:
Gwendolyn E Babers and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Walker v. McDough
as 1:2023cv00085
Plaintiff:
Gary E. Walker
Defendant:
Chris McDough and Kay Ivey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mays v. Johnson et al
as 1:2023cv00109
Plaintiff:
Otis Mays
Defendant:
Johnson, Moreno, Heckman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Morris v. Hamm et al (INMATE 4)
as 2:2023cv00001
Plaintiff:
Kenneth E. Morris
Defendant:
John Q. Hamm and Cam Ward
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Carmichael v. Gordy et al
as 7:2022cv01240
Plaintiff:
Evan E. Carmichael
Defendant:
Christopher Gordy, McCovery, Hutton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Ms. Cooper et al
as 5:2022cv01239
Plaintiff:
Martel Robinson
Defendant:
Ms. Cooper, K Cash, Ms. Parker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davis v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv08031
Petitioner:
Albert E Davis, Jr.
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00996
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sanders v. Chilton County Jail et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2022cv00454
Plaintiff:
James E. Sanders
Defendant:
Chilton County Jail, Chilton County Judicial System, City of Clanton and others
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.
