Cases 91 - 100 of 728
Cook v. Wingo et al
as 4:2022cv00548
Plaintiff:
Don Lloyd Cook
Defendant:
Ryan Wingo, Jeff Sheeler, John S Joe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Other Civil Rights
Roberts v. Graves et al
as 4:2022cv00492
Plaintiff:
Brunson Roberts
Defendant:
Solomon Graves, Dexter Payne, William Straughn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Phillips v. Yates
as 2:2022cv00117
Plaintiff:
Joe Ernest Phillips
Defendant:
John P Yates
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Willis v. McGilton et al
as 4:2022cv00532
Plaintiff:
Billy Ray Willis
Defendant:
Dammon Joe McGilton, John Crisman and Stone County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bethune v. Scott et al
as 4:2022cv00537
Plaintiff:
Joe Bethune
Defendant:
Scott, Dukes and Faulkner County Sheriff's Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McAdams v. Kidd et al
as 6:2022cv06050
Plaintiff:
Joe B. McAdams
Defendant:
Brandon Franklin Kidd and Kidd Holdings, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Allen v. State of Arkansas
as 5:2022cv05086
Petitioner:
Joe Mason Allen
Defendant:
State of Arkansas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Conley v. Hutchinson et al
as 4:2022cv00353
Plaintiff:
Gary Lynn Conley
Defendant:
Asa Hutchinson, Dextar Payne, Kenyon V Randle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Simmons v. Arkansas Department of Corrections et al
as 4:2022cv00335
Plaintiff:
Albert Simmons
Defendant:
Arkansas Department of Corrections, Dexter Pain and Joe Page
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lewis v. Fowler et al
as 3:2022cv00105
Plaintiff:
Marvin Earl Joe Lewis, Sr.
Defendant:
Thomas Fowler, Heather Owens, Marty Boyd 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.
