Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Williams v. Hoffman et al
as 2:2022cv00175
Plaintiff:
Quentrell Eugene Williams
Defendant:
Martin E Hoffman, Brandon P Mason and Brandi R Enriquez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lionel B. Kyles v. Hinds County Detention Division Services et al
as 3:2019cv00440
Defendant:
Warden R. Fielder, Hinds County Detention Division Services and Sheriff Victor P. Mason
Plaintiff:
Lionel B. Kyles
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tarvin v. Mason et al
as 3:2018cv00893
Defendant:
Major Unknown Rushing, Sheriff Victor P. Mason and Raymond Hinds County Detention Center
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Booker Orlandus Tarvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mallett v. Rushing et al
as 3:2017cv00409
Plaintiff:
Marcus E. Mallett
Defendant:
Mary Rushing, Victor P. Mason, Dewayne Owens and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Butler v. Lovewhich et al
as 3:2017cv00365
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Terrell Butler
Defendant:
Criag Lovewhich, Tony Alexander and Victor P. Mason
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Broadhead v. Carter et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2016cv00711
Plaintiff:
James M. Broadhead
Defendant:
M. Strickland, R. Butler, M. Laman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Broadhead v. Butler et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2016cv00544
Plaintiff:
James M. Broadhead
Defendant:
Warden Butler, V. Baldwin, Correctional Harris and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Broadhead v. Holcey et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2016cv00384
Plaintiff:
James M. Broadhead
Defendant:
Michael Holcey, M. Foster, P. Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Daniel Mason v. Earl Barksdale
as 13-7096
Petitioner - Appellant:
DANIEL P. MASON
Respondent - Appellee:
EARL BARKSDALE, Warden, Dillwyn Correctional Center
Mason v. Barksdale
as 7:2013cv00003
Respondent:
Earl Barksdale
Petitioner:
Daniel P. Mason
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
