Cases 51 - 60 of 184
Gerald Thompson v. OH Dept of Rehabilitation, et al
as 16-3314
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GERALD THOMPSON
Defendant - Appellee:
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DON MORGAN and others
Ronald Chappell v. Donald Morgan, et al
as 16-3307
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RONALD CHAPPELL
Defendant - Appellee:
DONALD MORGAN, Warden, Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and CHIEF OF CLASSIFICATION BUREAU FOR ODRC
Thompson v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
as 1:2016cv00409
Petitioner:
Gerald Thompson
Respondent:
Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
In re: Angelo Fears, et al v. John Kasich, et al
as 16-3149
:
In re: OHIO EXECUTION PROTOCOL LITIGATION
Petitioner - Appellant:
ANGELO FEARS, RICHARD BAYS, ALVA E. CAMPBELL, JR. and others
Respondent - Appellee:
JOHN KASICH, Governor, State of Ohio, GARY C. MOHR, Director, ODRC, DONALD MORGAN, Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and others
Wesley Gill v. Warden, Southern Ohio Corr
as 16-3108
Petitioner - Appellant:
WESLEY GILL
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
In re: James Sudberry
as 15-4320
Movant:
In re: JAMES SUDBERRY
Respondent:
WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
In re: Edward Smith
as 15-4042
Movant:
In re: EDWARD SMITH
Respondent:
WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Humphrey v. Turner et al
as 1:2015cv00484
Plaintiff:
Lavalle Humphrey
Defendant:
Neil Turner, Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Cool and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Phillip Harris v. Warden SOCF
as 15-3675
Petitioner - Appellant:
PHILLIP M. HARRIS
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Marvin Johnson v. Warden
as 15-3676
Petitioner - Appellant:
MARVIN JOHNSON
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
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.
