Cases 21 - 30 of 652
Leggett v. Hinds County Raymond Jail et al
as 3:2023cv03105
Plaintiff:
Deshun R. Leggett
Defendant:
Hinds County Raymond Jail, Tyree Jones, Hinds County Officers and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Blake v. Rogers et al
as 3:2023cv01371
Plaintiff:
Kevin Lamar Blake
Defendant:
W. Rogers, S. Williams, C. A. Tyre and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Venious v. Landry et al
as 5:2023cv01564
Plaintiff:
Tyre K Venious
Defendant:
Jeff Landry, Lamar Davis and James LeBlanc
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tyre Bradley v. USA
as 23-13627
Petitioner / Appellant:
TYRE MARQUISE BRADLEY
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
McDuffy v. Skoviera et al
as 6:2023cv02068
Plaintiff:
Tyree Ronelle McDuffy
Defendant:
Officer Brett Skoviera and Officer Brandon Neely
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McClellan v. Wilson et al
as 1:2023cv02950
Plaintiff:
Tyree McClellan
Defendant:
Tyrell A. Wilson, Assistant Warden, Chief of Security and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Latimore v. Clinton Police Department
as 6:2023cv05390
Plaintiff:
Denzell Tyree Latimore
Defendant:
City of Clinton Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Jamel Lunsford v. Warden Jacob
as 23-7075
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMEL TYREE LUNSFORD
Defendant / Appellee:
WARDEN JACOB, WARDEN LOCKLEAR, TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner of Prison/Director and others
Tyree v. Healey
as 1:2023cv12518
Plaintiff:
William M. Tyree
Defendant:
Maura T. Healey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Simmons v. Dekalb County Jail
as 1:2023cv04863
Plaintiff:
Tyree Jamal Simmons and Tyree Jamaul Simmons
Defendant:
DeKalb County Jail
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.
