Cases 41 - 50 of 182
Roberts v. Myers et al (DEATH PENALTY)(MEMBER)
as 2:2014cv01028
Plaintiff:
David Lee Roberts
Defendant:
Kim Thomas and Walter Myers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Myers v. Myers, et al. (DEATH PENALTY)(MEMBER)
as 2:2014cv01029
Plaintiff:
Robin Dion Myers
Defendant:
Kim Thomas and Walter Myers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mashburn v. Thomas
as 1:2014cv01829
Petitioner:
Ellis Louis Mashburn, JR
Defendant:
Jefferson Dunn
Respondent:
Kim Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Perkins v. Thomas et al
as 7:2014cv01814
Petitioner:
Roy E Perkins
Respondent:
Kim Thomas and Walter Myers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Taylor v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2014cv00439
Petitioner:
Jarrod Taylor
Respondent:
Alabama Department of Corrections and Kim Thomas
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Death Penalty)
Pippen v. Bentley et al
as 6:2014cv01787
Plaintiff:
Samuel Pippen
Defendant:
Robert Bentley, Kim Thomas, Freddie Butler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Davenport et al
as 4:2014cv01774
Plaintiff:
Jon Johnson
Defendant:
Carter Davenport, Robert Bentley, Kim Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Booth v. Tuscaloosa County et al
as 7:2014cv01622
Plaintiff:
Ricky Dewayne Booth
Defendant:
Tuscaloosa County, Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County District Attorney Office and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hare v. Bentley et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2014cv00710
Plaintiff:
Niles Hampton Hare
Defendant:
Robert Bentley, Kim Thomas and Sharon McSwain-Holland
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hewlett v. Shaffer et al
as 6:2014cv01384
Plaintiff:
Michael A Hewlett
Defendant:
Scotty R Shaffer, Robert Danford, Kim Thomas 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.
