Cases 121 - 130 of 146
Reed v. Allen et al
as 5:2008cv01307
Plaintiff:
Lester Carpenter Reed
Defendant:
Richard Allen, Billy Mitchem and David Tully
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Pride v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2008cv01195
Petitioner:
June Allen Pride
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Pruitt v. Mitchem et al
as 4:2008cv01046
Petitioner:
Stacy Ramon Pruitt
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Knight v. Mitchem et al (INMATE1)
as 2:2008cv00356
Plaintiff:
Tommy James Knight
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem and Troy King
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Williams v. Mitchem et al
as 4:2008cv00873
Petitioner:
LaKeith D. Williams
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Massey v. Mitchem et al (INMATE3)
as 1:2008cv00198
Plaintiff:
Jim Edward Massey
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Caldwell v. Allen et al
as 5:2008cv00293
Plaintiff:
Sammy Caldwell
Defendant:
Richard Allen, Ruth Naglich, Brandon Kanard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clemons v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2008cv00273
Petitioner:
Michael A Clemons
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Caldwell v. Allen et al (INMATE2)
as 2:2008cv00058
Plaintiff:
Sammy Caldwell
Defendant:
Richard Allen, Ruth Naglich, Brandon Kanard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Snow v. Mitchem et al
as 7:2008cv00076
Petitioner:
Terry Ray Snow
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
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.
