Cases 11 - 20 of 206
KING v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2023cv00568
Petitioner:
LAMANUEL LAMAR KING
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Cannady v. Polk County Sheriff Dep et al
as 1:2023cv00170
Petitioner:
Lamar Cannady
Respondent:
Polk County Sheriff Dep and Timothy Wright
Interested Party:
USA2255Group
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Cannady v. Schofield
as 1:2023cv00168
Plaintiff:
Lamar Cannady
Defendant:
Matthew Schofield, Public Defender Office-Advocat Office, Count of Polk and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAVIS v. BROWN
as 1:2023cv00458
Petitioner:
REGINALD LAMAR DAVIS
Respondent:
WARDEN BROWN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jordan v. State of North Carolina
as 5:2023hc02123
Petitioner:
Jovon Lamar Jordan
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Samuels v. McFadden et al
as 3:2023cv00329
Plaintiff:
Byron Lamar Samuels, Jr
Defendant:
Garry McFadden, Roy Cooper, Kristin Cooper and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Anderson v. Goodsum et al
as 1:2023cv00108
Plaintiff:
Albert Marquavious Lamar Anderson
Defendant:
FNU Goodsum, FNU Price, Doug Newton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Coleman v. USA
as 4:2023cv00066
Petitioner:
Stye Lamar Coleman
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Cannady v. Schofield
as 1:2023cv00074
Plaintiff:
Lamar Cannady
Defendant:
Matthew Schofield
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Urquhart v. United States of America
as 7:2023cv00104
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Lamar Urquhart and Benjamin L. Urquhart
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
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.
