Cases 61 - 70 of 74
Curry v. State of Alabama et al
as 1:2009cv00404
Plaintiff:
Dean Harold Curry
Defendant:
State of Alabama, Troy King, Judy Newcomb and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moorer v. Patton et al
as 2:2009cv01310
Plaintiff:
Dana Dewayne Moorer
Defendant:
Patton, Chris Curry and Rosland
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brooks v. Reeves et al
as 2:2009cv01003
Plaintiff:
Anthony S. Brooks
Defendant:
Daniel Reeves, Chris Curry, Bobby Owens and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Presley v. Joiner et al
as 2:2009cv00870
Petitioner:
Gary Wayne Presley
Respondent:
J Michael Joiner, G Daniel Reeves, Robert Owens and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gates v. Curry et al
as 2:2009cv00506
Plaintiff:
Brian Keith Gates
Defendant:
Chris Curry and Shelby County Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Reeves v. Jones et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2008cv00821
Plaintiff:
Richard Kyle Reeves
Defendant:
Warden Jones, J. C. Giles, Warden Mason and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Albarran-Ortiz et al v. Wade et al
as 2:2008cv00571
Petitioner:
Simeon Albarran-Ortiz and Mario Alberto Hernandez-Lopez
Respondent:
Allan Wade, Adam Schniper, Chris Curry and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Cupps v. Curry
as 2:2007cv01349
Plaintiff:
Johnny Lindale Cupps
Defendant:
Chris Curry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shields v. Curry et al
as 2:2007cv01307
Plaintiff:
Andre Shields
Defendant:
Chris Curry and Attorney General of State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Allen v. Curry et al
as 2:2007cv01151
Plaintiff:
Jerry Allen
Defendant:
Chris Curry and Shelby County Jail
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.
