Cases 41 - 50 of 125
Shaw v. Middle District of Tennessee
as 5:2014hc02033
Petitioner:
James L. Shaw, III
Respondent:
Middle District of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Miller et al v. Medium Security Institute (MSI) et al
as 4:2014cv00331
Plaintiff:
Jovan Miller, Steven Dunn, Tyrone Williams and others
Defendant:
Medium Security Institute (MSI), Ronald Glass, Pat Schommer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Henderson v. Fischer, et al
as 9:2013cv01537
Plaintiff:
Michael Joshua Henderson
Defendant:
Brian Fischer, Robin E. Richardson, John G. Bielowicz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shaw v. Louie et al
as 1:2013cv00673
Plaintiff:
Sherman L. Shaw
Defendant:
David Louie, Keith M. Kaneshiro and Armina A. Ching
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James Hawley v. Floyd A. Landsey, Incorporated, et al
as 13-20697
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES HAWLEY
Defendant - Appellee:
FLOYD A. LANDSEY, INCORPORATED and ETHAN L. SHAW
Simmons v. Shaw et al
as 2:2013cv00094
Plaintiff:
Richard Simmons
Defendant:
Kendall L. Shaw, FNU Lindsey, Mr. (FNU) Beverly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hawley v. Landsey, Inc. et al
as 4:2013cv01918
Plaintiff:
James Hawley
Defendant:
Floyd A Landsey, Inc. and Ethan L Shaw
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shaw v. United States
as 3:2013cv00624
Petitioner:
James L. Shaw
Respondent:
UNITED STATES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jamie Hawley v. Ray Moore, et al
as 13-40656
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMIE HAWLEY
Defendant - Appellee:
RAY M. MOORE, Moore-Landrey LLP Law Firm Partner, FLOYD A. LANDREY, Moore-Landrey LLP Law Firm Partner and ETHAN L. SHAW, Attorney
Shaw v. United States of America
as 1:2013cv00062
Plaintiff:
James L. Shaw, III
Defendant:
United States of America
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.
