Cases 1 - 10 of 25
Garcia v. SCDPS et al
as 3:2024cv00038
Plaintiff:
Jerome Garcia
Defendant:
SCDPS, Trooper Wayne Davidson, South Carolina Public Safety and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr (Other)
Reaves v. Davidson et al
as 4:2022cv01142
Plaintiff:
Kathy J. Reaves and Kathy Juanita Reaves
Defendant:
William H. Davidson, II, Davidson, Wren & DeMasters, P.A., South Carolina Div. of Motor Vehicles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hamm v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health et al
as 9:2021cv03084
Plaintiff:
Michael E Hamm
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Mental Health, John Magill, Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program Director and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rochester v. Clerk et al
as 6:2020cv04249
Defendant:
Oconee County Magistrate Judges, Beth Drake, United States Marshal's Service and others
Plaintiff:
Julian E Rochester
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McIlwain v. Kershaw County Sheriff Department et al
as 3:2020cv03665
Defendant:
Kershaw County Sheriff Department, Inv. Michael Davidson, Sheriff. Lee Boan and others
Plaintiff:
Demetrius Raynard McIlwain
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2020cv01073
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Vinson v. Davidson et al
as 2:2020cv00843
Defendant:
Timothy Davidson and James B McClellan
Plaintiff:
Michael James Vinson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2020cv00827
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Rochester v. Hood et al
as 6:2019cv01702
Defendant:
Judge Harwell, B Stirling, J W McBride and others
Plaintiff:
Julian E Rochester
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2019cv01641
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
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.
