Cases 61 - 70 of 494
Cooper et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2019cv02132
Plaintiff:
Jarrod Jones, James Maglothin, Gary Harris and others
Defendant:
3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv01115
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Christopher McCune v. Joann Shivers, Warden, et al
as 19-60470
Respondent / Appellee:
RONALD KING, Superintendent and JOANN SHIVERS, Warden
Petitioner / Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER O'NEIL MCCUNE
McCune v. King
as 3:2019cv00446
Defendant:
Superintendent Ronald King
Plaintiff:
Christopher O'Neil McCune
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. King et al
as 1:2019cv00117
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Mississippi and Ronald King
Petitioner:
Charles Smith, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lyons v. King
as 3:2019cv00326
Defendant:
Ronald King
Plaintiff:
Aaron Lyons
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Thomas Jones v. Ronald King, Superintendent
as 19-60173
Petitioner / Appellant:
THOMAS H. JONES
Respondent / Appellee:
RONALD KING, Superintendent, Central Mississippi Correctional Facility
Brown v. King et al
as 3:2019cv00189
Defendant:
Lt. Unknown Davis, Sgt. Unknown Bailor, Warden Unknown Banks and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Nathan Edwards Brown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gamage v. CO-11 Jenkins et al
as 3:2018cv00868
Defendant:
Brian Ladner, CO-11 Jenkins, Latisha Brooks and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Melvin Gamage
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bell v. State of Mississippi
as 3:2018cv00771
Petitioner:
Kendrick Marques Bell
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Respondent:
State of Mississippi, James Fillyaw and Ronald King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
