Cases 41 - 50 of 124
Medley v. Dunn et al
as 2:2018cv00964
Plaintiff:
Glenn Harold Medley, Jr
Defendant:
Jefferson S Dunn, Leon Bolling, A Edwards and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Files v. Bolling et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2018cv00871
Plaintiff:
Earnest J Files, Jr
Defendant:
Leon Bolling and Steven T Marshall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nelson v. Bolling et al
as 2:2018cv00838
Petitioner:
Curtis Edward Nelson
Respondent:
Leon Bolling and Attorney General for the State of Alabama
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 1
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Washington v. Dunn et al
as 2:2018cv00785
Plaintiff:
Isaac Washington
Defendant:
Jefferson Dunn, Leon Bolling, Angela Miree and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 1
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Southwick v. Bolling
as 5:2018cv00719
Petitioner:
Joshua Loyd Southwick
Respondent:
Leon Bolling
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 2
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Matthews v. Bollings et al
as 1:2018cv00710
Petitioner:
Jerry Lee Matthews
Respondent:
Leon Bollings and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 4
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ashford v. Bolling
as 2:2018cv00703
Petitioner:
Jerry Lee Ashford
Respondent:
Leon Bolling, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Prestwood v. Bolling et al
as 4:2018cv00698
Petitioner:
Ledon Prestwood
Respondent:
Leon Bolling, III and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 3
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Milliner v. Bolling et al
as 1:2018cv00687
Petitioner:
Michael Milliner
Respondent:
Leon Bolling and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Price v. Bolling et al
as 2:2018cv00628
Plaintiff:
Jarell Damone Price
Defendant:
Leon Bolling, Errole Pickens and Jeffrey Baldwin
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 1
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.
