Cases 11 - 20 of 1,783
Edget v. Brown
as 24-60224
Petitioner:
Hudson Lynn Edget
Respondent:
Jennifer Brown, Interim Warden and State of Mississippi
Edget v. State of Mississippi
as 24-60221
Plaintiff:
Hudson Lynn Edget
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Thomas v Barnes
as 4:2024cv00046
Petitioner:
Forrest Thomas, III
Respondent:
Timothy Barnes and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nelson v. State of Mississippi
as 1:2024cv00131
Plaintiff:
Derrick Nelson
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. State of Mississippi
as 1:2024cv00675
Plaintiff:
Merlin Williams
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCann v. State of Mississippi
as 3:2024cv00226
Plaintiff:
Frankie L. McCann
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Star v. State of Mississippi
as 2:2024cv00060
Plaintiff:
David Lee Star
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00195
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Campbell v. Dixon
as 5:2024cv00032
Plaintiff:
Clyde Campbell
Defendant:
State of Mississippi and Mike Dixon
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. State of Mississippi
as 3:2024cv00140
Plaintiff:
Christopher Smith
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
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.
