Cases 21 - 30 of 206
Jackson v. Stitt et al
as 4:2022cv00502
Plaintiff:
Jesse Michael Wayne Jackson
Defendant:
Kevin Stitt, Officer DeShields, Officer Evans and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bearman v. Gonzalez et al
as 5:2022cv00805
Plaintiff:
Michael Wayne Bearman
Defendant:
Gonzalez Pest Control, Mr. Joseph Gonzalez and Mr. Scott Ely
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Castleman v. Marler et al
as 6:2022cv00235
Plaintiff:
Mark Wayne Castleman
Defendant:
Dr Marler, Donna K. Arnold, Regina VanBlaircom and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rogers v. Stephens County et al
as 5:2022cv00465
Plaintiff:
Johnny Wayne Rogers, Jr
Defendant:
Stephens County, Javier Martinez and Matthew Brown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Allen v. Crow
as 6:2022cv00125
Petitioner:
Michael Wayne Allen
Respondent:
Scott Crow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stith v. Elmore et al
as 4:2022cv00159
Plaintiff:
Derrick Wayne Stith
Defendant:
Kenneth Allan Elmore, Steve Kunzweiler, Kevin Keller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kaspereit v. United States of America
as 5:2022cv00197
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Chad Wayne Kaspereit
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Bentley v. Harvonek
as 5:2022cv00160
Petitioner:
Travis Wayne Bentley
Respondent:
Kameron Harvonek
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv00076
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hunter v. Morris
as 6:2022cv00028
Petitioner:
Terry Wayne Hunter
Respondent:
Chris Morris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
