Cases 11 - 20 of 242
James v. Crimmett et al
as 3:2023cv00223
Plaintiff:
Paul R. James, Jr.
Defendant:
Crimmett, C.O. & Goose Creek Correctional Center Official's, McCormeik and others
SPRADLIN et al v. TOBY et al
as 5:2023cv00328
Plaintiff:
LISA SPRADLIN
Defendant:
WARDEN ANNETTIA TOBY, DEPUTY WARDEN GEORGE IVEY, OFFICER STEPHANIE MACKLIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MACK v. CITY OF MARIANNA et al
as 3:2023cv24646
Plaintiff:
LADARIUS NAJUAN MACK
Defendant:
CITY OF MARIANNA, TYLER SCARBOROUGH, MARIANNA POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CADET v. WHEATON et al
as 3:2023cv17134
Plaintiff:
MIKE CADET
Defendant:
WHEATON, WHITE, BURDETTE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scarborough v. USA
as 3:2023cv00496
Petitioner:
Shenyrus Scarborough
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Rose v. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough L.L.P.
as 2:2023cv01264
Plaintiff:
James R. Rose
Defendant:
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough L.L.P.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Barbati v. Flowers
as 6:2023cv00537
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Barbati
Defendant:
Mark Flowers
Consolidated Defendant:
Micah Scarborough
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Barbati v. Scarborough et al
as 6:2023cv00538
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Barbati
Defendant:
Micah Scarborough and Mark Flowers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scarborough v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2023cv00154
Plaintiff:
Joseph David Scarborough
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Scarborough v. TDCJ, Director
as 3:2023cv00378
Petitioner:
Joseph David Scarborough
Respondent:
TDCJ, Director and Director, TDCJ-CID
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.
