Cases 31 - 40 of 63
Roberts v. South Carolina, State of
as 5:2015cv01484
Petitioner:
Steven William Roberts
Respondent:
Warden Tyger River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Frederick Harris v. Tim Riley
as 15-6317
Petitioner - Appellant:
FREDERICK JERMAINE HARRIS
Respondent - Appellee:
TIM RILEY, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution
Chisholm v. South Carolina
as 9:2015cv00311
Petitioner:
Jerome Chisholm
Respondent:
Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Brian Nesbitt v. Warden Tyger River
as 14-7626
Petitioner - Appellant:
BRIAN KEITH NESBITT
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Respondent:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James Brown, Jr. v. Warden Tyger River Corr. Inst.
as 14-6837
Petitioner - Appellant:
JAMES BROWN, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Respondent:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Middleton v. Roseneau
as 5:2014cv01111
Petitioner:
Antonio Middleton
Respondent:
Warden Tyger River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Steven Rollinson v. Tim Riley
as 14-6399
Petitioner - Appellant:
STEVEN A. ROLLINSON
Respondent - Appellee:
TIM RILEY, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution
Nesbitt v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
as 0:2013cv02456
Plaintiff:
Brian Keith Nesbitt
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Tyger River Correctional Institution, Tim Riley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Holloway v. South Carolina, State of et al
as 5:2013cv01978
Plaintiff:
James Holloway
Respondent:
Warden Tyger River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ponder v. South Carolina
as 3:2012cv01444
Petitioner:
Bobby Ponder
Respondent:
Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
