Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Mitchell v. Hill et al
as 5:2023cv00686
Plaintiff:
Daniel Lee Mitchell
Defendant:
Sara Elizabeth Hill, Catina R Drywater, Rachel Marie Dallis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mitchell v. Parris, et al
as 23-5081
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANIEL LEE MITCHELL
Defendant / Appellee:
JEFFERY BRYANT JONES, Attorney Cherokee Nation, individual capacity, ZACHARY STARKEY, Captain Rogers County Sheriff Department, individual capacity, DETENTION OFFICER MALLOT, Rogers County Sheriff Department, individual capacity and others
Mitchell v. Parris et al
as 4:2023cv00017
Plaintiff:
Daniel Lee Mitchell
Defendant:
John Everett Parris, Rachel Marie Dallis, Jeffery Bryant Jones and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bryant Jones v. Superintendent Smithfield SCI, et al
as 22-1115
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRYANT JONES
Defendant / Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT SMITHFIELD SCI, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY
JONES v. LUTHER et al
as 2:2019cv01070
Petitioner:
BRYANT JONES
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, JAMIE LUTHER and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Small v. Waters et al
as 6:2017cv00363
Plaintiff:
Vincent Harry Small
Defendant:
Kyle Waters, Stacey Slaughter, J. Bryant Jones and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bryant Jones v. Maryland Division
as 14-7378
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRYANT JONES
Defendant - Appellee:
MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION and WARDEN, Eastern Correctional Institution
Jones v. Md. Division of Correction
as 8:2013cv02563
Plaintiff:
Bryant Jones
Defendant:
Md. Division of Correction and Warden
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Watson et al
as 3:2007cv00142
Plaintiff:
Avery W. Bryant Jones
Defendant:
Darell Watson and John Hamby
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.
