Cases 1 - 10 of 27
Chandler v. Hooper
as 6:2023cv00677
Plaintiff:
Charles Chandler
Defendant:
Tim Hooper
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ingersoll v. Ma'at et al
as 2:2022cv05188
Plaintiff:
Chandler Allen Ingersoll
Defendant:
Warden Ma'at and Merrick Garland
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Ingersoll v. Ma'at
as 2:2022cv02242
Plaintiff:
Chandler Allen Ingersoll, Living Man, Chandler-allen Ingersoll and others
Defendant:
Warden Ma'at
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Ingersoll v. Ma'at et al
as 3:2022cv00417
Petitioner:
Chandler Allen Ingersoll
Respondent:
Ma'at and Merrick Garland
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Adcock v. Bossier Parish et al
as 5:2022cv01496
Plaintiff:
Lane Tyler Adcock
Defendant:
Sheriff Dept of Bossier City, Sgt Normand, Deputy Porteau and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adcock v. 26th Judicial District Court
as 5:2022cv01263
Plaintiff:
Lane Tyler Adcock
Defendant:
26th Judicial District Court, Julian Whittington, Police Jury Bossier Parish and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ventress v. Rayford
as 2:2021cv01605
Plaintiff:
Chandler Kyle Ventress
Defendant:
Phonso Rayford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Mingo v. Bossier Maximum Correctional Facility et al
as 5:2016cv00522
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel A Mingo
Defendant:
Bossier Maximum Correctional Facility, Julian C Whittington, Rodney Boyer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Johnson et al
as 3:2014cv00331
Defendant:
CB. Johnson and Chandler Matthews
Plaintiff:
Reginald E. Thomas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pigg v. Gamble et al
as 5:2013cv00564
Plaintiff:
Randy Pigg
Defendant:
Gertrude Gamble, John M Parsons, Johnston H Chandler 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.
