Cases 21 - 30 of 32
BURCHAM v. LANESBORO CI et al
as 1:2016cv00111
Plaintiff:
RICHARD STEPHEN BURCHAM
Defendant:
LANESBORO CI and STERN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VAN DYKE v. PIEDMONT CI et al
as 1:2016cv00006
Plaintiff:
DENNIS VAN DYKE
Defendant:
PIEDMONT CI, TABOR CI, PENDER CI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VAN DYKE v. WILKINSON et al
as 1:2015cv00907
Plaintiff:
DENNIS VAN DYKE
Defendant:
WILKINSON, AGEE, HARRIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VAN DYKE v. BROWN et al
as 1:2015cv00678
Plaintiff:
DENNIS VAN DYKE
Defendant:
KENT BROWN, FRANK WITNEY, ROBERT DAVIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VAN DYKE v. CLERK OF COURT RUTHERFORD COUNTY et al
as 1:2015cv00637
Plaintiff:
DENNIS VAN DYKE
Defendant:
CLERK OF COURT RUTHERFORD COUNTY, PIEDMONT CI ADMINISTRATION, TABOR CITY CI ADMINISTRATION and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Medina v. CI - Rivers Prison, NC
as 5:2015hc02109
Petitioner:
Jaime Medina
Respondent:
CI - Rivers Prison, NC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
VAN DYKE v. PIEDMONT CI ADMINISTRATION AND MEDICAL et al
as 1:2014cv00668
Plaintiff:
PROPHET PREACHER PRO SE WRITER ATTORNEY AT LAW DENNIS ROGER VAN DYKE
Defendant:
PIEDMONT CI ADMINISTRATION AND MEDICAL, TABOR CITY CI ADMINISTRATION AND MEDICAL, PENDER CI ADMINISTRATION AND MEDICAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KNOX v. MARION CI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF PRISON
as 1:2014cv00072
Petitioner:
BOBBY R. KNOX, JR.
Respondent:
MARION CI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF PRISON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JONES v. HARDEE et al
as 1:2012cv00140
Plaintiff:
RODNEY E. JONES
Defendant:
MICHAEL A. HARDEE, HU PATRICK, MR. MATTHEWS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Willingham v. Jackson et al
as 5:2011ct03162
Plaintiff:
Charles D. Willingham
Defendant:
HL Jackson, D. Davis, Officer Mace and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
