Cases 61 - 70 of 70
Walker v. Meko
as 1:2009cv00082
Petitioner:
William B. Walker
Respondent:
Joseph Meko
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Walker v. Forsyth Co. Detention Center et al
as 1:2008cv03724
Plaintiff:
David B. Walker
Defendant:
Forsyth Co. Detention Center, ABL Food Services and Southeastern Services
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bivens v. Walkers et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2008cv00807
Plaintiff:
Willie Sam Bivens
Defendant:
B. Walkers, M. Foster, M. France and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Walker v. FL Attorney General et al
as 6:2008cv00015
Petitioner:
Charles B. Walker
Respondent:
FL Attorney General, Secretary, DOC and David McCallum
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. Walker et al
as 1:2007cv02999
Plaintiff:
Adrian Jones
Defendant:
B. Walker and John Rowley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Walker v. Prison Health Services et al
as 1:2007cv01635
Plaintiff:
David B. Walker
Defendant:
Prison Health Services and Gwinnett County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Walker v. Scarborough et al (INMATE2)
as 1:2007cv00633
Plaintiff:
Freddie B. Walker
Defendant:
Tommy R. Scarborough and Alabama State Bar
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WALKER v. GEORGE W. HILL CORR. FACILITY et al
as 2:2007cv02663
Plaintiff:
GODFREY B. WALKER
Defendant:
GEORGE W. HILL CORR. FACILITY, RONALD NARDOLILLO, B. J. PATEL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Turner v. Rupf et al
as 3:2005cv02297
Plaintiff:
Edward Turner
Defendant:
Warren E. Rupf, Joe Caruso, M.D. James Rael and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Walker v. Motley
as 1:2002cv00164
Petitioner:
William B. Walker
Respondent:
John Motley
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.
