Cases 21 - 30 of 31
McDonald v. Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2012cv03592
Plaintiff:
Fredrick McDonald
Defendant:
Department of Corrections, Kim Thomas, Jimmy Patrick and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McDonald v. Hughes (INMATE 1)
as 2:2012cv00808
Plaintiff:
Warren F. McDonald, III
Defendant:
Preston Hughes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hoskin v. Roy, et al.
as 4:2012cv02067
Plaintiff:
Torreco Hoskin
Defendant:
Kennedy Roy, McDonald and Bolling
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Broadhead v. Coatey et al
as 2:2011cv01439
Plaintiff:
James M Broadhead
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Defendant:
S Coatney, Deaundra Johnson, Yambip and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Patterson v. Sutton et al
as 2:2010cv01818
Plaintiff:
Jamal Patterson
Defendant:
Sutton, Gary, McDonald and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Patterson v. Sutton et al
as 2:2009cv02342
Plaintiff:
Jamal Patterson
Defendant:
Sutton, Gary, McDonald and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McDonald v. Reese et al
as 1:2009cv01797
Plaintiff:
Timothy C. McDonald
Defendant:
Constance Reese, Darren Hallman, Joey Paul and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McDonald v. Gray et al
as 1:2009cv00056
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel McDonald
Defendant:
Wayne Gray, Chandra Johnson and David Kervin
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Moore v. Dinnerman et al (INMATE2)
as 2:2009cv00003
Plaintiff:
Hoses R. Moore
Defendant:
William Dinnerman, Bruce Holden, Richard Golden and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
McDonald v. Giles et al
as 1:2008cv02170
Petitioner:
David McDonald
Respondent:
J. C. Giles, State of Alabama and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
