Cases 51 - 60 of 2,722
Mullins v. Virginia Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2023cv00523
Plaintiff:
Darrell Mullins
Defendant:
Virginia Department of Corrections, Sussex I State Prison Medical Department, Kevin McCoy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wilson v. Dotson
as 7:2023cv00687
Petitioner:
Christopher E. Wilson
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke and Chadwick S. Dotson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ofori v. Clarke et al
as 7:2023cv00683
Plaintiff:
Terry K. Ofori
Defendant:
T.B. Smith, B.J. Ravizee, M.D. Powers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ofori v. Clarke et al
as 7:2023cv00680
Plaintiff:
Terry K. Ofori
Defendant:
T.B. Smith, B.J. Ravizee, M.D. Powers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ofori v. Clarke et al
as 7:2023cv00670
Plaintiff:
Terry K. Ofori
Defendant:
T.B. Smith, B.J. Ravizee, M.D. Powers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Butts v. Clarke
as 1:2023cv01396
Petitioner:
Corey Lee Butts
Respondent:
Harold W Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hawley v. Clarke
as 7:2023cv00659
Petitioner:
Garry Hawley
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thompson v. Dotson
as 7:2023cv00657
Petitioner:
Eugene L. Thompson
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke and Chadwick S. Dotson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wilson v. Clarke
as 2:2023cv00506
Petitioner:
Christopher E. Wilson
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hawley v. Clarke
as 2:2023cv00498
Petitioner:
Garry Hawley
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
