Cases 11 - 20 of 33
Burton v. Armstrong et al
as 2:2014cv02311
Petitioner:
Bobby E. Burton, Jr.
Respondent:
Bruce Armstrong and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Russell v. Harris et al
as 7:2014cv02189
Plaintiff:
Joseph Anthony Russell
Defendant:
Arthur Harris, Patsy Armstrong and Bibb County Commisioners
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Armstrong v. Thomas, et al. (INMATE 1)
as 2:2014cv00469
Plaintiff:
Quenterius Jamar Armstrong
Defendant:
Kim Tobias Thomas and Christopher Gordy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Armstrong v. State of Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 3)
as 1:2014cv00096
Plaintiff:
Anthony Allen Armstrong
Defendant:
State of Alabama Department of Corrections and Cynthia Stewart
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Armstrong v. State of Alabama Department of Corrections
as 1:2014cv00014
Petitioner:
Anthony Armstrong
Respondent:
State of Alabama Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bester v. Armstrong
as 2:2013cv01833
Plaintiff:
Samdrekus Eugene Bester
Defendant:
David Armstrong
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 2
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Washington v. Armstrong et al
as 5:2012cv04048
Plaintiff:
Ronald Jermaine Washington
Defendant:
A Armstrong, Blake Dorning, Steve Morrison and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Armstrong v. Golson et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2012cv00647
Plaintiff:
Terry Armstrong
Defendant:
Carolyn Golson and Stephanie Atchison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lawson v. Armstrong et al
as 1:2012cv00287
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Lawson
Defendant:
Richard Armstrong and Warden Patterson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lawson v. Patterson et al
as 1:2011cv00554
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Bernard Lawson
Defendant:
Tony Patterson, Richard Armstrong, Mr. Powers and others
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.
