Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Bocook v. Eddie et al
as 2:2023cv03481
Plaintiff:
Daryl D. Bocook
Defendant:
Eddie and Annette Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bocook v. Eddie et al
as 7:2023cv00614
Plaintiff:
Daryl D. Bocook
Defendant:
Dr. Eddie and Annette Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cook et al v. Yost et al
as 3:2021cv01544
Plaintiff:
Matthew Cook and Limitless Existence, LLC
Defendant:
Dave Yost, Annette Smith-Chambers, Tom McDaniels and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Gant v. Elam et al
as 1:2021cv00117
Defendant:
Warden Chae Harris, Director Annette Smith-Chambers, John/Jane Doe 1-5 and others
Plaintiff:
Marcus Gant
Interested Party:
State of Ohio, Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Goldwire v. Smith-Chambers et al
as 2:2020cv02673
Plaintiff:
Robert F. Goldwire
Defendant:
Mrs. Cleveland, Marva Allen, Alexander Kostenko and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gerald v. Mohr et al
as 1:2019cv00754
Defendant:
Timothy Young, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Annette Smith and others
Plaintiff:
Jeremy X. Gerald
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2018cv00217
Petitioner:
SUSIE ANNETTE SMITH
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv00296
Petitioner:
SUSIE ANNETTE SMITH
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv00160
Petitioner:
SUSIE ANNETTE SMITH
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
SMITH v. USA
as 2:2013cv00357
Petitioner:
SUSIE ANNETTE SMITH
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
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.
