Cases 21 - 30 of 657
Abir Ali v. Esker Tatum
as 23-7309
Plaintiff:
ABIR ALI
Defendant:
ESKER TATUM, Warden, JOHN DOE and JOHN A. DOE
Eads v. Tatum et al
as 7:2023cv00826
Plaintiff:
Jerry Eads
Defendant:
K. Tatum and Lt. Mullins
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kimble v. Yakima County Jail et al
as 1:2023cv03200
Plaintiff:
Tatum Kimble
Defendant:
Yakima County Jail and Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McPherson v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al
as 6:2023cv00068
Plaintiff:
Brentrez McPherson and Royal High Chief Priest BaBA
Defendant:
Georgia Department of Corrections, Tyrone Oliver, Jacob Beasley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shields v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County, et al
as 23-3223
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MELVIN L. SHIELDS
Defendant / Appellee:
UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, CITY OF OLATHE, KANSAS, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY and others
(PC) Santoyo v. Tatum et al
as 2:2023cv02481
Plaintiff:
Jorge Aguilar Santoyo
Defendant:
Tatum, J. Pebbles, Jenniffer R. Dupre and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tatum v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv04025
Petitioner:
Steven Tatum
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ali v. Tatum et al
as 3:2023cv00616
Plaintiff:
Abir Ali
Defendant:
Esker Lee Tatum and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Metcalf v. GEO Group, Inc. et al
as 3:2023cv00598
Plaintiff:
James Andrew Metcalf
Defendant:
GEO Group, Inc., Esker Tatum, Stephen Herrick and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Henry et al
as 6:2023cv01755
Plaintiff:
Ramone Dayne Robinson
Defendant:
Duane Henry, Kadean Wilson, Trevor Persenaire and others
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.
