Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Tehuti-El v. Bell
as 2:2022cv00099
Petitioner:
Ausar Tehuti-El
Respondent:
Adam Bell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Tehuti-El v. Bell
as 2:2022cv00064
Petitioner:
Ausar Tehuti-El
Respondent:
Adam Bell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Edge v. Lewis et al
as 2:2022cv00013
Plaintiff:
Derick T. Edge
Defendant:
Ronnie Lewis, Adam Bell and Mark Melton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WOOTEN v. BOHANNON
as 2:2021cv00092
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS LEELON WOOTEN
Defendant:
Sheriff Preston Bohannon, JEFF DAVIS SHERIFFS DEPT, CAPT Adam Bell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WALKER v. MELTON et al
as 2:2021cv00091
Plaintiff:
KRISTAL CHEYANNE WALKER
Defendant:
Mark Melton, Adam Bell, Appling County Sheriff's Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WOOTEN v. BOHANNON
as 1:2021cv00160
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS LEELON WOOTEN
Defendant:
SHERIFF PRESTON BOHANNON, JEFF DAVIS SHERIFFS DEPT, CAPT ADAM BELL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WALKER v. MELTON et al
as 1:2021cv00155
Plaintiff:
KRISTAL CHEYANNE WALKER
Defendant:
SHERIFF MARK MCHON, ADAM BELL, APPLING COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Brunswick Judicial Circuit et al
as 2:2020cv00055
Defendant:
Brunswick Judicial Circuit, Mark Melton, Appling County Detention Center and others
Plaintiff:
Calvin Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BELL v. SHERIFF OF HENRY COUNTY et al
as 1:2019cv00557
Defendant:
HENRY COUNTY, INDIANA and SHERIFF OF HENRY COUNTY
Plaintiff:
ADAM BELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shaw v. Appling County Detention Center et al
as 2:2017cv00082
Plaintiff:
Waymon D. Shaw
Defendant:
Appling County Detention Center, Adam Bell, Mark Melton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
