Cases 1 - 10 of 99
Croon, Billy v. Eau Claire County Jail
as 3:2023cv00424
Petitioner:
Billy Lee Croon
Respondent:
Eau Claire County Jail
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gilliam v. Centeruion Medical et al
as 1:2023cv00029
Plaintiff:
Billy Lee Gilliam
Defendant:
Centeruion Medical, BCCX Complex, Tennessee Department of Correction and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Sexton v. Unknown
as 2:2022cv01642
Plaintiff:
Billy Lee Sexton
Defendant:
Unknown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Al-Shabazz v. Streeval
as 7:2022cv00429
Petitioner:
Malik Al-Shabazz and Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr.
Respondent:
J.C. Streeval
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Lisenby v. Myers et al
as 5:2021cv00734
Plaintiff:
Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr and Malik Al-Shabazz
Defendant:
Mr Kitchings and Ronaldo Myers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Joslin v. Tewalt
as 1:2021cv00020
Petitioner:
Billy Lee Joslin, Jr
Respondent:
Director IDOC Josh Tewalt
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rhoads #504915 v. Kadwell et al
as 1:2020cv01148
Defendant:
Unknown Kadwell, Mecosta, County of, Mecosta County Jail and others
Plaintiff:
Billy Lee Rhoads #504915
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rhoads #504915 v. Osceola, County of et al
as 1:2020cv01112
Defendant:
Osceola County Jail, Osceola County Office and Osceola, County of
Plaintiff:
Billy Lee Rhoads #504915
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lisenby v. Rayzard et al
as 5:2020cv04009
Plaintiff:
Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr and Malik Al-Shabazz
Defendant:
Lt Thomas, Ofc Priester and Captain Rayzard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rhoads #504915 v. Osceola, County of et al
as 1:2020cv01092
Defendant:
Mecosta, County of, Board of Commissioners, Unknown Simpson and others
Plaintiff:
Billy Lee Rhoads #504915
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.
