Cases 1 - 10 of 91
Berryman v. Huffman
as 23-60627
Petitioner:
Brian Scott Berryman
Respondent:
Brand Huffman, Superintendent
Coit (PS) v. Stencil et al
as 1:2023cv02835
Plaintiff:
Jill Coit
Defendant:
Andre Stencil, Jared Polis, Randolph and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Reid v. Powell
as 23-4130
Petitioner / Appellant:
BRIAN SCOTT REID, SR.
Respondent / Appellee:
ROBERT POWELL
Smith v. Bishop
as 23-10607
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Raylon Smith
Defendant / Appellee:
Ricky Bishop, Sheriff, FNU Blair, Correctional Officer, FNU Olson, Sgt and others
Steward v. Chandler et al
as 2:2023cv00368
Plaintiff:
Joseph Saul Steward
Defendant:
Matthew Chandler, Brian Scott Stover, Shelley Burger and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brian Culver v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
as 23-10910
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRIAN SCOTT CULVER
Defendant / Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Berryman v. Cain et al
as 1:2022cv00140
Petitioner:
Brian Scott Berryman
Respondent:
Burl Cain and Mississippi Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Henry v. State Correctional Institution-Muncy et al
as 1:2022cv01391
Plaintiff:
Jasmine Henry
Defendant:
State Correctional Institution-Muncy and Brian Scott
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dean v. Chilton County Jail et al (INMATE 4)
as 2:2022cv00452
Plaintiff:
Brian Scott Dean
Defendant:
Chilton County Jail, Chilton County Judicial System, City of Clanton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson et al v. Chilton County Jail et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2022cv00209
Plaintiff:
Tabeus Dewayne Robinson, James William S. Jones, Arthur Jacobs and others
Defendant:
Chilton County Jail, Chilton County Judicial System, City of Clanton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
