Cases 11 - 20 of 77
Peoples v. Charlotte-Meck Police Department et al
as 3:2023cv00207
Plaintiff:
William Henry Peoples, lll
Defendant:
Charlotte-Meck Police Department, Public Defenders Office, State of North Carolina Judges and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomas v. Pike et al
as 5:2023ct03083
Plaintiff:
Daniel Isaiah Thomas
Defendant:
Hunter Pike, Lt. Willis, Lt. Parks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Murphy v. Slagle et al
as 5:2023hc02038
Petitioner:
Fred Murphy
Respondent:
Mike Slagle and Josh Stein
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MURPHY v. USA
as 1:2022cv01036
Petitioner:
MICHAEL LAVERNE MURPHY
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
MURPHY v. STATE OF N.C.
as 1:2022cv00973
Petitioner:
JAMES L. MURPHY
Respondent:
STATE OF N.C.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Taffe v. Scott
as 5:2022ct03224
Plaintiff:
Timothy Taffe
Defendant:
C/O Scott, Warden King, Warden Scarantino and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Sneed v. Kreep et al
as 5:2022ct03197
Plaintiff:
Jvon P. Sneed
Defendant:
Detective M.J. Kreep, Magistrate Underwood, Magistrate M.D. Murphy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brice v. Gaston County Sheriffs Office/Jail-Detention et al
as 3:2022cv00280
Plaintiff:
Romeal Brice
Defendant:
Gaston County Sheriffs Office/Jail-Detention, FNU Shirley, FNU Murphy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MURPHY v. STATE OF N.C.
as 1:2022cv00441
Petitioner:
James L. Murphy
Respondent:
STATE OF N.C.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. State of N.C.
as 1:2022cv00111
Petitioner:
James L. Murphy
Respondent:
State of N.C.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
