Cases 61 - 70 of 184
Nixson v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
as 1:2015cv00386
Petitioner:
Dequantez Nixson
Respondent:
Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Harris v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
as 1:2015cv00372
Petitioner:
Phillip M. Harris
Respondent:
Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Chappell v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
as 1:2015cv00294
Petitioner:
Ronald Chappell
Defendant:
Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Rutherford v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility et al
as 1:2015cv00164
Plaintiff:
Kenneth J. Rutherford, Jr.
Defendant:
Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Charlie Williamson, Sweeny and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
as 2:2015cv00613
Petitioner:
Levander Davis
Respondent:
Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hansen v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
as 1:2015cv00004
Petitioner:
Scott Kelly Hansen
Respondent:
Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
In re: James Sudberry
as 14-4272
Movant:
In re: JAMES SUDBERRY
Respondent:
WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Thompson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al
as 1:2014cv00935
Plaintiff:
Gerald Thompson
Defendant:
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Don Morgan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In re: James Sudberry
as 14-4051
Movant:
In re: JAMES SUDBERRY
Respondent:
WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Steinmetz v. Harrison et al
as 1:2014cv00829
Plaintiff:
Matthew Franklin Steinmetz
Defendant:
Correctional Officer Harrison, Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, C/O Irvin 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.
