Cases 31 - 40 of 115
John Robinson v. SC Dept PPPS
as 17-7027
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOHN C. ROBINSON
Respondent - Appellee:
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES and WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Turuk Saunders v. Warden of Broad River Prison
as 17-6674
Petitioner - Appellant:
TURUK SAUNDERS, a/k/a Turick Frazier
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Keith A. Sims v. Robert Stevenson
as 17-6304
Petitioner - Appellant:
KEITH A. SIMS
Respondent - Appellee:
ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution
Trimmier v. Stirling et al
as 4:2017cv00634
Petitioner:
Antonio Rashad Trimmier
Respondent:
Warden Broad River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Scott Douglas Parker v. Warden Broad River
as 17-6168
Petitioner - Appellant:
SCOTT DOUGLAS PARKER
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Respondent:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Patrick Walker v. Warden of Broad River Corr.
as 17-6102
Petitioner - Appellant:
PATRICK BERTRAM WALKER
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Respondent:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Roderick English v. Warden, Broad River
as 16-7601
Petitioner - Appellant:
RODERICK JEROME ENGLISH
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Watts v. Warden Broad River Correctional Institution
as 2:2016cv02954
Petitioner:
Harold Watts
Respondent:
Warden Broad River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Sweat v. Warden Broad River Correctional Institution
as 2:2016cv02695
Petitioner:
Jeremy Shay Sweat
Respondent:
Warden Broad River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jeremy Durant v. Warden, Broad River Correction
as 16-6940
Petitioner - Appellant:
JEREMY T. DURANT
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
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.