Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Rath v. Wingfield et al
as 3:2024cv00326
Plaintiff:
Emil Roland Rath, II
Defendant:
Warden Barry Wingfield and FCC Yazoo City Low-I
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Zeray v. Goodrich et al
as 1:2024cv00837
Petitioner:
Alem Zeray
Respondent:
Warden Barry Goodrich, Attorney General Philip J. Weiser, Barry Goodrich and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CHAPMAN SR v. SHAVERS et al
as 1:2023cv00143
Plaintiff:
TREVON D CHAPMAN SR
Defendant:
DEPUTY WARDEN BRIAN SHAVERS, DEPUTY WARDEN SPANN, DEPUTY WARDEN OSBORNE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wooddell v. Kanode et al
as 7:2021cv00459
Plaintiff:
Hugh Kevin Wooddell
Defendant:
Warden Barry Kanode, Officer Dalton, Officer Young and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Monzon v. Repass et al
as 7:2020cv00332
Defendant:
Officer Felts, Warden Barry Kanode, Major H. Sharpe and others
Plaintiff:
Roman Sebastian Monzon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Jackson v. Rule et al
as 4:2019cv00158
Respondent:
Warden Barry Rule and Attorney General Jim Hood
Petitioner:
Herman Jackson, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TORRES v. MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION et al
as 3:2019cv17704
Defendant:
MONMOUTH COUNTY, ROGER BREMEKAMP, JOHN DOE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS 1-10 and others
Plaintiff:
ANGELO TORRES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Chapman v. Tucker
as 6:2019cv00404
Petitioner:
Anthony B Chapman
Respondent:
Warden Barry Tucker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dogan v. Tucker
as 4:2019cv00030
Petitioner:
Eddie Dean Dogan, Jr.
Respondent:
Warden Barry Tucker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dixon v. The State of New York et al
as 1:2018cv08889
Defendant:
The Chief Administrator, Arresting Officer 887282, Arresting Officer 674007 and others
Plaintiff:
Echo Westley Dixon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
