Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Curtis Brooks v. Tonya Chapman
as 23-6825
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CURTIS RAY BROOKS
Defendant / Appellee:
TONYA D. CHAPMAN, Ex-Chair/Virginia Parole Board, KEMBA S. PRADIA, Ex-Vice Chair/Virginia Parole Board, A. LINCOLN JAMES, Ex-Member/Virginia Parole Board and others
Defendant:
RALPH NORTHAM, Ex-Governor/Chief Executive of Virginia
Brooks v. Clarke
as 1:2023cv00098
Petitioner:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Respondent:
Harold W Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brooks v. Chapman et al
as 1:2022cv00305
Plaintiff:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Defendant:
Tonya D. Chapman, Kemba Smith Pradia, A. Lincoln James and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brooks v. Clarke
as 1:2020cv00595
Respondent:
Harold W Clarke
Petitioner:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Brooks v. Clarke
as 7:2020cv00093
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Petitioner:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Brooks v. Bennett et al
as 7:2019cv00169
Defendant:
Harold W. Clark and Adrianne L. Bennett
Plaintiff:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Curtis Ray Brooks v. Harold Clarke
as 16-7121
Petitioner - Appellant:
CURTIS RAY BROOKS
Respondent - Appellee:
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Virginia
Brooks v. Clarke
as 1:2016cv00976
Petitioner:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Respondent:
Harold Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Curtis Brooks, Jr. v. Sergeant Liptrot
as 13-7442
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CURTIS RAY BROOKS, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
SERGEANT LIPTROT, Lieutenant/Supervisor and DR. NICHOLS, Psychiatrist
Defendant:
T. L. BIRKHEAD, Program Supervisor, T. JOHNSON, Correctional Officer, R. CLARY, Evidence Based Practice-Manager and others
Curtis Brooks v. Director, VA DOC
as 13-7032
Petitioner - Appellant:
CURTIS RAY BROOKS, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al.
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.
