Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Ferguson v. Fairley et al
as 1:2022cv00039
Plaintiff:
Kevin Ferguson
Defendant:
Bobby C. Fairley, Vickie Erkhart, Burell Caine and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ferguson v. Errington et al
as 1:2020cv00266
Defendant:
Joe Errington and South Mississippi Correctional Institution
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
James Ferguson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ferguson v. Pennington et al
as 3:2018cv00502
Defendant:
Charlayne D. Hall, Mary Dempsey and Richard Pennington
Plaintiff:
James Ferguson
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ferguson v. Ellis et al
as 3:2017cv00165
Plaintiff:
James Ferguson
Defendant:
Unknown Ellis, Unknown Williams, Frank Shaw and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ferguson v. Morgan et al
as 3:2016cv00237
Plaintiff:
James Ferguson
Defendant:
T. Morgan, J. Williams, Unknown Ruffin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ferguson v. Hogans et al
as 3:2015cv00666
Plaintiff:
James M. Ferguson
Defendant:
H. Hogans, Unknown Thomas, M. Braxton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ferguson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2015cv00261
Plaintiff:
James M. Ferguson
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Corrections , Christopher Epps and Jim Hood
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ferguson v. Bivens
as 1:2015cv00016
Plaintiff:
James Ferguson
Defendant:
Jarita Bivens
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Laneri v. King et al
as 1:2014cv00234
Plaintiff:
Henry Joesph Laneri, III
Defendant:
Ronald King, Beverly Breland, Debbie Cooley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ferguson v. Mississippi Department of Correction et al
as 1:2014cv00204
Plaintiff:
James M. Ferguson
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Correction , Christopher Epps and Jim Hood
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.
