Cases 1 - 10 of 39
Moss v. McClain
as 5:2024cv00584
Petitioner:
Scotty Dale Moss
Respondent:
Warden Antonio McClain and Attorney General State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Moss v. McClain et al
as 5:2023cv01600
Petitioner:
Scotty Dale Moss
Respondent:
Antonio McClain and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Giddens v. Pressley et al (INMATE 4)
as 2:2023cv00301
Plaintiff:
Antonio Giddens
Defendant:
Desmond Pressley, Officer Barnes and Sgt. Moss
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wilson v. Hasty et al
as 7:2022cv00004
Plaintiff:
Lavarice Wilson
Defendant:
Denise Hasty, David Lance Bailey, Brantley A. Moss and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moss v. Cutts et al
as 7:2021cv01468
Plaintiff:
Timothy Lamar Moss
Defendant:
Andrew Cutts and T. Miree
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moss v. Butler et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2020cv00657
Plaintiff:
Michael Scott Moss
Defendant:
Jefferson S. Dunn, Kay Ivey and Reosha Butler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Serratt v. Butler et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv00625
Plaintiff:
Bobby Gene Smith, Jr., Jonathan Yancy, Roy Murphy Rutledge and others
Defendant:
Warden Butler, Kay Ivey, Jefferson S. Dunn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rogers v. Baldwin et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2019cv00853
Defendant:
Captain Lucky, Officer Moss and Warden Baldwin
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Rogers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Raines v. White et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2019cv00680
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Raines
Defendant:
Officer Griffin, Officer Mitchell, Ella White and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MOSS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 7:2019cv00409
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Mallori Lee Moss
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
