Cases 11 - 20 of 232
v. Mays et al
as 4:2023cv01478
Plaintiff:
Michael J Mays
Defendant:
State of Alabama, Herman Harris, Kenneth Parham and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Meza (PS) v. Melvin et al
as 1:2023cv02695
Plaintiff:
David Meza
Defendant:
Amanda Melvin, Braden C. Piel, David A. Custer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
David Meyers v. Balrus Gernegen
as 23-6988
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID MEYERS
Defendant / Appellee:
MS. BALRUS PERRIGAN GERNEGEN, Scotland Correctional Institute Acting MCON Unit Manager, MARCUS SCOTT, a/k/a Ronnie Scott, Scotland Correctional Institute MCON Unit Manager, MR. CAPTAIN INGRAM, Scotland Correctional Institute and others
SPRY v. DOE et al
as 1:2023cv00835
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS JAMES SPRY
Defendant:
JON DOE, JANE DOE, WAKENDA GREENE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cunningham v. Hamm et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2023cv00564
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Cunningham and Dewayne Scott Cunningham
Defendant:
John Q. Hamm, David Lamar, Lt. Randolph and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parham v. Illinois River Correctional Center
as 1:2023cv01314
Plaintiff:
Marion Parham
Defendant:
Illinois River Correctional Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clemon Parham v. Norm Robinson
as 23-3496
Petitioner / Appellant:
CLEMON D. PARHAM
Defendant / Appellee:
NORM ROBINSON, Warden
PARHAM v. WARDEN
as 1:2023cv00780
Petitioner:
CARDELL PARHAM
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tysheed Davis v. Ernest Meyer, et al
as 23-1608
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TYSHEED DAVIS
Defendant / Appellee:
ERNEST MEYER, HAKEEM BROWN, RASHON WATSON and others
Coleman-Green v. Parham
as 1:2023cv01050
Plaintiff:
Da'Quan Coleman-Green
Defendant:
Jeff Parham
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.
