Cases 31 - 40 of 3,859
Bailey #361996 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2024cv01118
Petitioner:
Leon Bailey, Jr.
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jennings v. Dotson et al
as 7:2024cv00315
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Jennings
Defendant:
Chadwick Dotson, Mack A. Bailey, Jr., Richardson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Payne et al
as 4:2024cv00345
Plaintiff:
Keithen L Jones
Defendant:
Dexter Payne, Dale Reed, Raymond Naylor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
M.B. v. United States of America, et. al.
as 1:2024cv00018
Plaintiff:
M.B.
Defendant:
United States of America, J.C. Streeval, Dr. Kareem Wasim, PsyD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
BAILEY v. THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL et al
as 5:2024cv00090
Plaintiff:
ULYSSES BAILEY, III
Defendant:
THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, ANGELA GORDON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Michael Titus v. Scarface, et al
as 24-1725
Plaintiff:
Michael Titus, ADC #168523
Defendant:
Scarface, Movie, Al Pacino, Director of Scarface, Keef Coff Group and others
Adam Hall v. DAC Prison
as 24-6261
Plaintiff:
ADAM WADE HALL, a/k/a Abdul Al Kareem Muhammad
Defendant:
DAC PRISON and RAYMOND BAILEY, Tabor CI Program Director
Gata v. Bailey
as 1:2024cv00602
Plaintiff:
Alisbey Santillon Gata
Defendant:
Brian Bailey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Bailey v. Paxton
as 6:2024cv00236
Plaintiff:
Markiesha (Mark) Bailey
Defendant:
Ken Paxton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bailey v. Albright
as 6:2024cv00240
Plaintiff:
Markiesha (Mark) Bailey
Defendant:
Judge Alan D. Albright
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.
