Cases 11 - 20 of 2,617
Pearson v. Clackamas County Jail et al
as 3:2024cv01442
Plaintiff:
David Lloyd Pearson
Defendant:
Unknown Clackamas County Jail Staff, Clackamas County Jail, Jail Captain and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mcghee, Ladarius v. Pratter, Jesse et al
as 3:2024cv00612
Defendant:
John Doe 1-3, Sgt. Timothy Rutledge, C.O. Jesse Pratter and others
Plaintiff:
Ladarius Deequanmay Mcghee
Unknown:
CCI Prison Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mumford v. Ingram
as 1:2024cv03823
Respondent:
Judge Ingram
Petitioner:
Lloyd Edward Mumford, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mottley v. Rock et al
as 3:2024cv02046
Plaintiff:
Skylar Mottley and Devin Mottley
Defendant:
John Doe, Anthony Jones, Latoya Hughes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bonilla v. Lloyd
as 4:2024cv05992
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Defendant:
Judge Howard R. Lloyd
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LLOYD v. USA
as 2:2024cv00417
Defendant:
USA
Plaintiff:
MARIO HOWARD LLOYD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Crowell v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv03156
Petitioner:
Buford Lloyd Crowell
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stanley Boclair v. Rob Jeffreys, et al
as 24-2406
Defendant:
DAVID L. EVELSIZER, ROB JEFFREYS, Acting Director, ROBERT MUELLER, Southern Regional Director and others
Plaintiff:
STANLEY BOCLAIR
Booth v. USA
as 4:2024cv00691
Petitioner:
Lloyd Booth
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Stanley Boclair v. Rob Jeffreys, et al
as 24-2397
Defendant:
LLOYD HANNA, Dietary Manager, FRANK LAWRENCE, Former Warden, ROB JEFFREYS, Acting Director and others
Plaintiff:
STANLEY BOCLAIR
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.
