Cases 11 - 20 of 29
In re: James Robinson
as 14-10745
Petitioner:
In re: JAMES L. ROBINSON
Successive Habeas Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Robinson v. Womble et al (INMATE 1)
as 1:2014cv00112
Plaintiff:
James L. Robinson
Defendant:
Joseph Womble and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Robinson v. Moulton et al (INMATE 1)
as 3:2013cv00766
Plaintiff:
James L. Robinson
Defendant:
Kevin Moulton, Michael Conaway, Kim Tobias Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Robinson v. Cooks et al (INMATE 2)
as 1:2013cv00691
Plaintiff:
James L. Robinson
Defendant:
Kim Tobias Thomas, Luther Strange and Mary Cooks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Robinson v. Thomas et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2013cv00691
Plaintiff:
James L. Robinson
Defendant:
Kim Tobias Thomas and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Enbridge Pipelines (FSP), L.L.C. v. A 50 Foot Wide (More or Less) Pipeline Easement et al
as 4:2013cv00603
Plaintiff:
Enbridge Pipelines (FSP), L.L.C.
Defendant:
A 50 Foot Wide (More or Less) Pipeline Easement, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, James L Robinson, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 43 U.S.C. § 945
Robinson v. Thomas, et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2012cv01069
Plaintiff:
James L. Robinson
Defendant:
Kim Tobias Thomas, Alabama Department of Corrections, Leeposey Daniels and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
James Robinson v. Sheriff, et al
as 12-11113
Petitioner - Appellant:
JAMES L. ROBINSON
Respondent - Appellee:
SHERIFF and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Robinson v. Hughes, et al (INMATE 3)
as 1:2011cv00841
Plaintiff:
James L. Robinson
Defendant:
Andy Hughes and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Robinson v. Thomas, et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2011cv00830
Plaintiff:
James L. Robinson
Defendant:
Kim Tobias Thomas , Luther Strange and Freddie Butler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
