Cases 11 - 20 of 72
Webster v. Henline et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00358
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, Captain Tuck, Officer Templin and others
Plaintiff:
Cornelius Webster
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Henline et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00360
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, Captain Tuck, Officer Templin and others
Plaintiff:
Zachary L. Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gann v. Henline et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv00359
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, Captain Tuck, Officer Templin and others
Plaintiff:
James R. Gann
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Henline et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv00345
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, Captain Tuck, Officer Templin and others
Plaintiff:
Cornelius Webster, Kareem A. Jones, Michael D. Collins, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Quinn v. Henline et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00346
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, Captain Tuck, Officer Templin and others
Plaintiff:
Cornelius Webster, Kareem A. Jones, Michael D. Collins, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Quinn v. Henline et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00339
Defendant:
Captain Tuck, Officer Templin, Lieutenant Richardson and others
Plaintiff:
Marcus Quinn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Files v. Giddens et al
as 2:2020cv00281
Defendant:
Mike McBurnett, Julian M King, Gilmore and others
Plaintiff:
Earnest James Files, JR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cockrell v. Dunn
as 4:2018cv02089
Respondent:
Jeff Dunn
Petitioner:
Carlton R Cockrell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dunson v. Cullman County Detention Center
as 5:2018cv01740
Plaintiff:
Carlton Evan Dunson
Defendant:
Cullman County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dunson v. Cullman County Detention Center
as 5:2018cv01739
Respondent:
Cullman County Detention Center and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Petitioner:
Carlton Evan Dunson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
