Cases 51 - 60 of 35,550
Johnson #753595 v. Lawson et al
as 2:2024cv00159
Defendant:
Unknown Rigotti, Unknown Lawson, Unknown Mills and others
Plaintiff:
Darren Deon Johnson #753595
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Stanfield et al
as 2:2024cv00920
Defendant:
FNU Stanfield, FNU Cordova and FNU Carter
Plaintiff:
Michael David Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SMITH v. NEAL
as 1:2024cv00767
Plaintiff:
JAMES BRANNDON SMITH
Defendant:
NEAL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Williams
as 1:2024cv00153
Respondent:
B Williams
Petitioner:
Roger Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Lathan et al
as 2:2024cv01179
Defendant:
Unit Manager Pawlak, Wisconsin Department of Corrections and Ms Lathan
Plaintiff:
Trevonn D Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McKay #874159 v. Davis et al
as 2:2024cv00156
Plaintiff:
Devin McKay #874159
Defendant:
B. Smith, Trish L. Kubont, Unknown King and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bruvold v. Smith et al
as 1:2024cv00918
Respondent:
Steve Smith and Reyna McCain
Petitioner:
Rollie Bruvold
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Smith et al v. Hodges et al
as 1:2024cv00311
Plaintiff:
M. S. and Patrick Ryan Smith
Defendant:
John Walker, Lynn Blix, Sheriff Michael Hodges and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 6:2024cv00473
Petitioner:
Roy Edward Smith
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC)Goodlow v. Broomfield, et al.,
as 2:2024cv02498
Defendant:
Broomfield, Santos, Gonzalez and others
Plaintiff:
Sherode Goodlow
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.
