Cases 1 - 10 of 16
May #929149 v. Minnick et al
as 1:2024cv00383
Plaintiff:
Damian Michael May #929149
Defendant:
Emily A. Minnick, Unknown Smolenski, Carolyn Burns and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Tisdale
as 23-50637
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Frank Alonzo Jones, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
Roderick Tisdale, Officer, Jason Petty, Officer and Michael May, U.S. Marshal
Jones, Jr v. Tisdale et al
as 6:2023cv00448
Plaintiff:
Frank Alonzo Jones, JR
Defendant:
Roderick Tisdale, Jason Petty and Michael May
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones, Jr v. Tisdale et al
as 4:2023cv00018
Plaintiff:
Frank Alonzo Jones, JR
Defendant:
Roderick Tisdale, Jason Petty and Michael May
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mays v. United States of America
as 1:2016cv22797
Petitioner:
Michael Mays
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Cheatham et al v. Thomas et al
as 4:2014cv01952
Plaintiff:
Antonio Cheatham , Mark Duke , James Edwards and others
Defendant:
Kim Thomas , James Deloach , Terrance McDonnell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mays v. Davenport et al
as 4:2014cv00808
Plaintiff:
Michael Mays
Defendant:
Carter Davenport, Robert Bentley, Kim Thomas and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 3
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Michael Mays v. Warden, et al
as 12-16263
Petitioner - Appellant:
MICHAEL MAYS
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, STATE OF ALABAMA and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Mays v. Stinson et al
as 3:2012cv02950
Plaintiff:
Michael Mays
Defendant:
Stinson, Tigner, Laura Freeman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mays v. Davenport et al
as 2:2011cv01012
Petitioner:
Michael Mays
Respondent:
Carter Davenport , State of Alabama and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
