Cases 41 - 50 of 68
Peden et al v. Gwathney et al
as 2:2023cv00050
Plaintiff:
Terry Henderson Peden and The Law Group of THP, PLLC.
Defendant:
Leigh Gwathney, Dwayne Spurlock, Kay Ivey and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Morris v. Hamm et al (INMATE 4)
as 2:2023cv00001
Plaintiff:
Kenneth E. Morris
Defendant:
John Q. Hamm and Cam Ward
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jacoby v. Hamm et al (INMATE 4)
as 2:2022cv00711
Plaintiff:
Brent William Jacoby
Defendant:
John Q. Hamm, Karen Carter, Christopher Gordy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jacoby v. Hamm et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2022cv00712
Plaintiff:
Brent William Jacoby
Defendant:
John Q. Hamm, Brian Thompkins, David Lamar and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McKee v. Dunn et al
as 2:2022cv00647
Plaintiff:
Denice McKee
Defendant:
Jefferson S. Dunn, John Q. Hamm, Patricia Jones and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Foster v. Ivey et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2022cv00609
Plaintiff:
Danny Foster, Sr.
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, John Q. Hamm and Joseph Headley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hubbard v. Ivey et al
as 4:2022cv01328
Plaintiff:
Michael James Hubbard
Defendant:
Kay Ivey, John Q. Hamm, Cheryl Price and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thompson v. Hamm et al
as 1:2022cv01515
Petitioner:
Tyrone Christopher Thompson
Respondent:
John Q. Hamm and Phyllis Morgan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Portis v. Hamm et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2022cv00591
Plaintiff:
Wyman Frazier Portis
Defendant:
John Q. Hamm, Joseph H. Headley, Elizabeth Laseter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00637
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
