Cases 11 - 20 of 48
Lewis v. Entrekin et al
as 4:2016cv00288
Plaintiff:
Christopher LaMont Lewis
Defendant:
Todd Entrekin, Scott Hassel, Mike O'Bryant and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lewis v. Entrekin et al
as 4:2016cv00143
Petitioner:
Christopher Lamont Lewis
Respondent:
Todd Entrekin, Luther Strange, Joseph Willoughby and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lewis v. Entrekin et al
as 4:2016cv00142
Plaintiff:
Christopher LaMont Lewis
Defendant:
Todd Entrekin, Scott Hassell, Mike O'Bryant and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Body v. Entrekin et al
as 4:2014cv02460
Plaintiff:
Paul William Brian Body
Defendant:
Todd Entrekin, Scott Hassell and Etowah County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Polson v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE 2)
as 3:2013cv00366
Plaintiff:
Rudolph Polson
Defendant:
State of Alabama , Scott Hassell, Luther Strange and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Moore v. Entrekin et al
as 4:2013cv00638
Plaintiff:
Corion Leshon Moore
Defendant:
Todd Entrekin, Scott Hassell, Felton Parker and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Looney v. Entrekin et al
as 4:2012cv04011
Plaintiff:
Bradley Elliott Looney
Defendant:
Todd Entrekin and Scott Hassell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCarthy v. Entrekin et al
as 1:2012cv02376
Plaintiff:
Delvin McCarthy
Defendant:
Todd Entrekin , Scott Hassell and Doctor's Care PC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Entrekin et al
as 4:2012cv00615
Petitioner:
Christopher Sean Jones
Respondent:
Todd Entrekin and Attorney General for the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lee v. Entrekin et al
as 4:2011cv02628
Petitioner:
Kendrick Cruize Lee
Respondent:
Todd Entrekin and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
