Cases 171 - 180 of 24,880
Richman v. Graham
as 9:2024cv01635
Petitioner:
Ulysses Richman
Respondent:
Warden Graham
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
McCray v. Stirling et al
as 9:2024cv01638
Plaintiff:
James Roosevelt McCray
Defendant:
Cpt. Bryan P. Stirling, Cpt. B Bibbs, Lt. Coata Kimbrell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Johnson v. South Carolina, State of
as 0:2024cv01623
Petitioner:
Mickey Markell Johnson
Respondent:
South Carolina, State of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hosley v. Jansen
as 1:2024cv01621
Petitioner:
Otis Hosley
Respondent:
Warden Jansen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Beeman v. Janson
as 5:2024cv01622
Petitioner:
Michael Steven Beeman
Respondent:
Warden Janson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Bogan v. Warden FCI Edgefield
as 5:2024cv01624
Petitioner:
Clarence Bogan
Respondent:
Warden FCI Edgefield
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Johnson v. Stirling et al
as 5:2024cv01625
Plaintiff:
Tyrese Dashawn Johnson
Defendant:
Bryan P. Stirling, Shane Jackson and Jane Doe(Postal Director)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Dunn v. Janson
as 6:2024cv01544
Petitioner:
George Washington Dunn
Respondent:
Sean Janson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Louis v. Stirling
as 1:2024cv00759
Plaintiff:
Darryl Keith Louis, Jr. and Saddiq
Defendant:
Brian P. Stirling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Scott v. Davis et al
as 5:2024cv00588
Plaintiff:
Teran Scott
Defendant:
Willie Davis, Joel Anderson, Dennis Patterson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
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.
