Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Clyde v. Chilton County Jail et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2022cv00455
Plaintiff:
Michael S. Clyde
Defendant:
Chilton County Jail, Chilton County Judicial System, City of Clanton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson et al v. Chilton County Jail et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2022cv00209
Plaintiff:
Tabeus Dewayne Robinson, James William S. Jones, Arthur Jacobs and others
Defendant:
Chilton County Jail, Chilton County Judicial System, City of Clanton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gorbey v. United States of America et al
as 1:2016cv01035
Plaintiff:
Michael S Gorbey
Defendant:
United States of America, Federal Bureau Of Prisons, Taylor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gorbey v. Taylor et al
as 1:2015cv01359
Petitioner:
Michael S Gorbey
Respondent:
Taylor, United States, The and District of Columbia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Gorbey v. Taylor
as 1:2015cv01257
Petitioner:
Michael S Gorbey
Respondent:
Taylor
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Gorbey v. Taylor
as 1:2015cv00644
Petitioner:
Michael S Gorbey
Respondent:
Taylor
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Stepp v. Estes
as 5:2013cv01328
Plaintiff:
Michael S Stepp
Defendant:
Dewayne Estes
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stepp v. Ross
as 2:2010cv00319
Petitioner:
Michael S Stepp
Respondent:
Katrina Ross and The Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Stepp v. Ross
as 2:2010cv00279
Plaintiff:
Michael S Stepp
Defendant:
Katrina Ross
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hausey v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE2)
as 2:2009cv00373
Plaintiff:
Tommie Lee Hausey, Sr.
Defendant:
State of Alabama, Michael S. Lusk, Murrell Vardaman 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.
