Cases 1 - 10 of 586
Tyrone Mackey v. Warden, FCI Edgefield
as 24-7145
Petitioner:
TYRONE MACKEY
Respondent:
WARDEN OF FCI EDGEFIELD
Furman v. Mackey
as 1:2024cv01925
Petitioner:
John Furman
Respondent:
Warden Misty Mackey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Harper v. Howell et al
as 6:2024cv03284
Plaintiff:
Aden Warr Harper
Defendant:
Townsend, Melissa Howell, Sgt. Brent Switzer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rydarowicz v. Mackey
as 4:2024cv01691
Respondent:
Warden Misty Mackey
Petitioner:
Francis Rydarowicz
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Banner v. Patterson et al
as 6:2024cv05147
Defendant:
Stacey Richardson, Dennis Patterson, Felecia McKie and others
Plaintiff:
Genuine Truth Banner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Robinson v. Baker, et al
as 24-1770
Defendant:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MICHAEL TAYLOR, personal capacity, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EDMUND STONE, Personal capacity, ADAM BAKER, named as Unknown Baker, lieutenant, personal and individual capacity and others
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS ROBINSON
Lawrence Crawford, et al v. Multi-District Litigation Panel of Ohio, et al
as 24-3785
Plaintiff:
LAWRENCE L. CRAWFORD, aka Jonah Gabriel Jahjah Tishbite and JEREMIAH MACKEY, JR.
Defendant:
CITY OF WHITEHALL, OH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL OF OHIO
Miller v. Mackey
as 1:2024cv01461
Respondent:
Warden Misty Mackey
Petitioner:
Leelin J. Miller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mackey v. F.C.I. Edgefield
as 0:2024cv04161
Respondent:
Warden, F.C.I. Edgefield
Petitioner:
Tyrone Mackey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Randy Rodriguez v. Misty Mackey
as 24-3619
Petitioner:
RANDY V. RODRIGUEZ
Respondent:
MISTY MACKEY, Warden
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.
