Cases 1 - 8 of 8
WHITTLE v. SAMPSON et al
as 5:2024cv00026
Petitioner:
THOMAS ANDREW WHITTLE
Respondent:
WARDEN GREGORY SAMPSON, STATE OF GEORGIA and KELLI ADAMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WHITTLE v. REEVES et al
as 5:2023cv00305
Plaintiff:
THOMAS ANDREW WHITTLE
Defendant:
Deputy Warden REEVES, CAPTAIN SALDANA, CERT OFFICER PAUL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WHITTLE v. DOOLY STATE PRISON et al
as 5:2023cv00181
Plaintiff:
THOMAS ANDREW WHITTLE
Defendant:
DOOLY STATE PRISON, CAPTAIN RODRIGEZ, COUNSELOR GERMANY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomas Whittle v. The State of Georgia, et al
as 23-10820
Plaintiff / Appellant:
THOMAS ANDREW WHITTLE
Defendant / Appellee:
THE STATE OF GEORGIA, TIMOTHY VAUGHN, KELLI ADAMS and others
Whittle v. Andrews et al
as 3:2022cv00131
Petitioner:
Thomas Andrew Whittle
Respondent:
Lt. Col. Major S. B. Andrews, Brian Robinson, The Dodge County Jail and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Whittle v. Southern Correctional Medicine et al
as 3:2022cv00111
Plaintiff:
Thomas Andrew Whittle
Defendant:
Southern Correctional Medicine In its official capacity doing business as Genesis Healthcare Alliance, Lt. Col. Major S. B. Andrews and Dodge County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Whittle v. Vaughn et al
as 3:2022cv00094
Plaintiff:
Thomas Andrew Whittle
Defendant:
The State of Georgia, Timothy Vaughn, Kelli Adams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hyundai Rotem Company v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority et al
as 1:2015cv10132
Plaintiff:
Hyundai Rotem Company
Defendant:
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority , Massachusetts Department of Transportation , John R Jenkins and others
Intervenor_plaintiff:
Bombardier Transit Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
