Cases 11 - 20 of 100
Poores v. Toney et al (INMATE 3)
as 7:2022cv00473
Plaintiff:
Clinton Lee Poores
Defendant:
Deborah Toney, Steven T Marshall and State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Green v. Toney et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2022cv00155
Plaintiff:
Larry Green
Defendant:
Deborah Toney, Steven T. Marshall and Chadwick Crabtree
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2022cv00542
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ford v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2022cv00281
Plaintiff:
Christopher A Ford
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, John Hamm, Deborah Toney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Poores v. Toney et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2022cv00154
Plaintiff:
Clinton Lee Poores
Defendant:
Deborah Toney, Steven T. Marshall and State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Potts v. Toney (INMATE 1)
as 5:2022cv00107
Plaintiff:
James Merrill Potts
Defendant:
Deborah Toney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Gary v. Toney et al (INMATE 3)
as 3:2022cv00122
Plaintiff:
James Edward Gary, Jr.
Defendant:
Deborah Toney and Steven T. Marshall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Potts v. Toney (INMATE 1)
as 2:2021cv00833
Plaintiff:
James Merrill Potts
Defendant:
Deborah Toney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Toney et al
as 5:2021cv01553
Plaintiff:
Deangelo Smith
Defendant:
Deborah Toney, Coilier, Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cofield v. Toney et al
as 1:2021cv01603
Petitioner:
Tammy Roy Cofield
Respondent:
Deborah Toney and Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
