Cases 71 - 80 of 658
James v. Raybon et al
as 1:2022cv00252
Plaintiff:
Joe Nathan James, Jr.
Defendant:
Terry Raybon and John Hamm
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
James v. Raybon et al
as 1:2022cv00253
Plaintiff:
Joe Nathan James, Jr.
Defendant:
Terry Raybon, John Hamm, Julia Jordan Weller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
James v. Marshall
as 1:2022cv00241
Plaintiff:
Joe Nathan James, Jr.
Defendant:
Steve Marshall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
James v. Federal Defenders Of The Middle District Of Alabama
as 1:2022cv00242
Plaintiff:
Joe Nathan James, Jr.
Defendant:
Federal Defenders Of The Middle District Of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Southard v. Dodson et al (MAG+)
as 1:2022cv00332
Plaintiff:
Joe D. Southard, II
Defendant:
J. Dodson and Donald Valenza
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Southard v. Bridges et al (MAG+)
as 1:2022cv00333
Plaintiff:
Joe D. Southard, II
Defendant:
D. Bridges and J. Dodson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Blom et al v. City of Gadsden Alabama
as 4:2022cv00582
Plaintiff:
Matthew R Blom, Austin T Abernathy, Joseph C Bailey and others
Defendant:
City of Gadsden Alabama
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act
Clervrain et al v. Marshall et al (MAG+)
as 2:2022cv00188
Plaintiff:
Manetirony Clervrain and Jean Ronado
Defendant:
Steven Troy Marshall, Christopher John England, Patricia Todd and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
James v. Raybon
as 1:2022cv00152
Petitioner:
Joe Nathan James
Respondent:
Terry Raybon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00135
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
