Cases 11 - 20 of 20
Curtis Ray Brooks v. Harold Clarke
as 16-7121
Petitioner - Appellant:
CURTIS RAY BROOKS
Respondent - Appellee:
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Virginia
Brooks v. Clarke
as 1:2016cv00976
Petitioner:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Respondent:
Harold Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Curtis Brooks, Jr. v. Sergeant Liptrot
as 13-7442
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CURTIS RAY BROOKS, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
SERGEANT LIPTROT, Lieutenant/Supervisor and DR. NICHOLS, Psychiatrist
Defendant:
T. L. BIRKHEAD, Program Supervisor, T. JOHNSON, Correctional Officer, R. CLARY, Evidence Based Practice-Manager and others
Curtis Brooks v. Director, VA DOC
as 13-7032
Petitioner - Appellant:
CURTIS RAY BROOKS, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al.
Brooks v. Thomas
as 1:2013cv00278
Petitioner:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Respondent:
Todd Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brooks v. Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections et. al.
as 1:2013cv00631
Petitioner:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Respondent:
Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections et. al.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brooks v. Liptrot et al
as 1:2012cv01405
Plaintiff:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Defendant:
Liptrot
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Curtis Brooks v. Commonwealth of Virginia
as 11-6799
Petitioner - Appellant:
CURTIS RAY BROOKS, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA and D. B. EVERETT
Brooks v. Commonwealth of Virginia
as 1:2010cv01393
Petitioner:
Curtis Ray Brooks
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Virginia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Brooks v. District Court Judge
as 1:2007cv00359
Petitioner:
Curtis Ray Brooks, Jr.
Respondent:
District Court Judge
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
