Cases 21 - 30 of 34
Ballard vs. Sprayberry, et al.
as 4:2022cv00125
Plaintiff:
Rico Lamar Ballard
Defendant:
Warden Kelvin Sprayberry, Deputy Warden Jones, Deputy Warden Alise Hammock-Evans and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
KERCH v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 4:2022cv00082
Plaintiff:
PHILLIP NATHAN KERCH
Defendant:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Warden JONES, Deputy Warden BURKE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hartman v. Hollis et al
as 4:2022cv00094
Plaintiff:
Charles Hartman
Defendant:
Lt. Hollis, Sgt. Richardson, Sgt. Mitchell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DIXON v. JONES et al
as 4:2022cv00056
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK DOUGLAS DIXON
Defendant:
Warden JONES, Former Warden BLACK, MS HUDSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Singleton v. Jones et al
as 4:2022cv00018
Plaintiff:
James Singleton
Defendant:
Warden Jones, Warden Sprayberry and Lashay Hatcher
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Singleton v. Sprayberry et al
as 4:2021cv00158
Plaintiff:
James Singleton
Defendant:
Warden K. Sprayberry, Warden Jones and Lashay Hatcher
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ESTES-ROBINSON v. JONES
as 5:2020cv00487
Respondent:
WARDEN JONES
Petitioner:
YAHAAKOB MIYKAEL ESTES-ROBINSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Morrall v. Sprayberry et al
as 4:2020cv00239
Plaintiff:
Brandon Morrall
Defendant:
Warden Kevin Sprayberry, Field Director Robert Toole and Deputy Warden Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Morrall v. Sprayberry et al
as 4:2020cv00171
Plaintiff:
Brandon Morrall
Defendant:
Deputy Warden Jones, Kevin Sprayberry and Field Director of Hays Prison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parker v. Jones
as 4:2020cv00111
Plaintiff:
David Parker
Defendant:
Deputy Warden Jones
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.
