Cases 1 - 10 of 116
Conner v. USA
as 1:2024cv00131
Petitioner:
Daniel Dewayne Conner
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
ABDUL v. CONNER
as 1:2024cv21068
Plaintiff:
JABBAAR MUHAAHID ABDUL
Defendant:
Robert Conner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BRITTEN v. DIXON et al
as 4:2024cv00131
Plaintiff:
CORDERRO R BRITTEN
Defendant:
RICKY D DIXON, CONNER and SPREAKER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ABDUL v. CONNER
as 4:2024cv00082
Petitioner:
JABBAAR MUHAAHID ABDUL and JABBAAR MUJAAHID ABDUL
Respondent:
ROBERT CONNER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cenecharl v. Dixon et al
as 2:2023cv00535
Plaintiff:
Jean Cenecharl
Defendant:
Mr. Dixon, Mark Jones, Captain Robbins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cenecharl v. Dixon et al
as 2:2023cv00351
Plaintiff:
Jean Cenecharl
Defendant:
Mr. Dixon, Mark Jones, Captain Robbins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Starks v. Conner et al
as 1:2023cv02081
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Starks
Defendant:
Gwinnett County Superior Courts, Judge Melody Conner, Chief Legislator of Gwinnett and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Graves v. Boree et al
as 3:2023cv00476
Plaintiff:
Anthony Graves
Defendant:
M.A. Boree, R.B. Cole, C.E. Conner and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PITTMAN v. DIXON et al
as 4:2022cv00451
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM FENNELL PITTMAN
Defendant:
RICKY DIXON, LISA D MESSER, ROBERT CONNER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Owen Denson, Jr. v. Warden, et al
as 22-12856
Plaintiff / Appellant:
OWEN D. DENSON, JR.
Defendant / Appellee:
WARDEN, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LORI NORWOOD, Asst. Warden of Programs and others
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.
