Cases 21 - 30 of 1,451
Santos v. Bodiford
as 5:2024cv01244
Petitioner:
Eliseo Santos
Respondent:
Scotty Bodiford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Michael Criddle v. Jackson County Sheriff Office, et al
as 24-1476
Plaintiff:
Michael Christopher Criddle
Defendant:
Jackson County Sheriff Office, Ruth Ann Dickerson, David James and others
Caldwell v. Hamm et al
as 6:2024cv00268
Plaintiff:
Curtis Caldwell
Defendant:
John Hamm, Dr. Thomas, Scotty Schaffer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SMITH v. USA
as 1:2024cv00315
Plaintiff:
SCOTTIE E. SMITH
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
Gibson v. Lumpkin
as 24-10184
Petitioner:
Scottie H. Gibson
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, r, State of Texas 413th Judicial District of Johnson County, State of Texas 249th Judicial District Court of Johnson County and others
Pelosi-Dahl v. Rhoden et al
as 3:2024cv00217
Plaintiff:
Zachary V. Pelosi-Dahl
Defendant:
Scotty Rhoden, Julie C. Johnson, Brian S. Kramer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Padillas v. Bodiford
as 6:2024cv00902
Petitioner:
Roberto Padillas
Respondent:
Scotty Bodiford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (County)
US v. Scotty Simmons
as 24-4097
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
SCOTTY ORLANDO SIMMONS, a/k/a Migo
Gonzalez v. Bodiford et al
as 2:2024cv00790
Plaintiff:
Uriel Romero Gonzalez
Defendant:
Scotty Bodiford, Mr. Hollister and Greenville County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bridges v. Collier et al
as 9:2024cv00036
Plaintiff:
Scotty J. Bridges
Defendant:
Brian Collier, Regional Director, Unknown Goodall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
