Cases 81 - 88 of 88
Wallace v. Norton et al (INMATE1)
as 2:2007cv00762
Plaintiff:
James Edward Wallace
Defendant:
Billy Norton, Bobby Joe Jordan, Richard Allen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Spencer v. King et al
as 4:2007cv00791
Plaintiff:
James Edward Spencer
Defendant:
Troy King, Bob Riley, Gene Mitchell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bagley v. Price et al
as 7:2007cv00778
Petitioner:
James Edward Bagley
Respondent:
Cheryl Price, Bob Riley and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bagley v. Price et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2007cv00264
Plaintiff:
James Edward Bagley
Defendant:
Cheryl Price, Bob Riley and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Bagley v. Anniston Police Dept. et al
as 7:2007cv00432
Plaintiff:
James Edward Bagley
Defendant:
Anniston Police Dept. and Ted Hooks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
United States of America v. Currency et al
as 5:2007cv00382
Plaintiff:
United States of America and United States of America
Defendant:
Currency and Currency
Claimant:
Tobias Anjuan Payne, James Edward Forney and Berda Dianne Forney
ThirdParty Plaintiff:
Currency
ThirdParty Defendant:
United States of America and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs
Edwards v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
as 2:2007cv00171
Plaintiff:
Frank James Edwards
Defendant:
United States of America and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Bagley v. State of Alabama et al
as 4:2007cv00091
Petitioner:
James Edward Bagley
Respondent:
Sharon Price, Attorney General of State of Alabama, The and Alabama, State of
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.
