Cases 41 - 50 of 384
Ramos v. Dunn et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00936
Defendant:
Jacob R. Peters, Michael Strickland, Kenneth E. Drake and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Ethan Ramos
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barefield v. Dunn et al
as 2:2020cv00917
Defendant:
Arnaldo Mercado, Kay Ivey, Jacob R. Peters and others
Plaintiff:
Jacob Barefield
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moody v. Gordy et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00855
Defendant:
Correctional Officer Thomas, Christopher Gordy and J. Brown
Plaintiff:
Jacoby D. Moody
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Alexander v. Dunn et al
as 4:2020cv01542
Defendant:
Leon Bolling, Jefferson Dunn, Roderick Gadson and others
Plaintiff:
Keith Alexander
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Laseter v. Ventress Correctional Facility et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00550
Defendant:
Capt. Emberton, Lt. Lassiter, The State of Alabama and others
Plaintiff:
Travis Monroe Laseter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hubbert v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv00355
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, Lt. Gordon, Lt. Lassiter and others
Plaintiff:
Seth Taylor Hubbert
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cotner v. Gordy et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00311
Defendant:
Warden Mables and Christopher Gordy
Plaintiff:
Matthew Edward Cotner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Gordy et al
as 3:2020cv00179
Petitioner:
Eugene Lee Jones
Respondent:
Christopher Gordy and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Anderson v. Gordy et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00054
Defendant:
Officer Jackson, Christopher Gordy and Lt. Walker
Plaintiff:
Gregory Anthony Anderson, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Anderson v. Gordy et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv00026
Defendant:
Dominic S. Whitley, Sgt. Rogers, Officer Hill and others
Plaintiff:
Gregory Anthony Anderson, 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.
