Cases 31 - 40 of 69
Towles v. State Of Alabama
as 1:2015cv00443
Petitioner:
Rolland Sean Towles
Respondent:
State Of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TOWLES v. WETZEL et al
as 5:2015cv04256
Petitioner:
JAKEEM TOWLES
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ROBERT GILMORE and STEVEN GLUNT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Towle v. NH State Prison, Warden
as 1:2015cv00117
Notice Only:
NH Attorney General - Notice Only - Habeas (Court Use Only) and NH Department of Corrections - Notice Only - Habeas (Court Use Only)
Respondent:
NH State Prison, Warden
Petitioner:
Robert V. Towle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Towles v. Mendle et al(INMATE 1)(NO DISCOVERY)
as 2:2015cv00146
Plaintiff:
Rolland Sean Towles
Defendant:
Bob Mendle and Tahir Siddiq
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Troupe v. Swain et al
as 3:2014cv05886
Plaintiff:
David Troupe
Defendant:
William Swain, Thomas A L'Heureux, James W Jolly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Towles v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2014cv00962
Plaintiff:
Rolland Sean Towles
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections and Bullock County
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Carr #177026 v. Towles et al
as 2:2014cv01860
Plaintiff:
Emery Carr
Defendant:
Ronald Towles, Charles L Ryan, Stacey Crabtree and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Towles v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2014cv01510
Plaintiff:
Rolland Sean Towles
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections and Bullock County
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lori Towle v. Millicent Warren
as 14-1902
Petitioner - Appellant:
LORI TOWLE
Respondent - Appellee:
MILLICENT WARREN, Warden
Quezada v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2014cv01052
Defendant:
Arizona Department of Corrections, Charles L Ryan, Ronald Towles and others
Plaintiff:
David Terrazas Quezada, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
