Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv01108
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis
Williams v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al
as 4:2023cv01002
Petitioner:
Benita Williams
Respondent:
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Parole Board and Adult Parole Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Saul
as 7:2021cv05252
Plaintiff:
Benita Williams
Defendant:
Andrew Saul
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Benita Williams v. Annette Smith, et al
as 21-3320
Defendant / Appellee:
MS. [UNKNOWN] MONEY, K. RIEHLE, INTERESTED PARTY STATE OF OHIO and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BENITA WILLIAMS
Williams v. Baldolf et al
as 4:2021cv00688
Defendant:
Warden Baldolf, Anette Chambers-Smith and CCA
Plaintiff:
Benita Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Benita Williams v. Annette Smith, et al
as 21-3189
Defendant / Appellee:
MS. [UNKNOWN] MONEY, K. RIEHLE, INTERESTED PARTY STATE OF OHIO and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BENITA WILLIAMS
Williams v. Baldolf et al
as 2:2021cv00359
Defendant:
Warden Baldolf, DRC- Director Anette Chambers-Smith and CCA
Plaintiff:
Benita Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Baldolf et al
as 2:2021oe00359
Defendant:
Warden Baldolf, DRC- Director Anette Chambers-Smith and CCA
Plaintiff:
Benita Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Baldolf et al
as 4:2021cv00076
Defendant:
Warden Baldolf, Anette Chambers-Smith and CCA
Plaintiff:
Benita Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Baldolf et al
as 2:2020cv05895
Defendant:
Warden Baldolf, DRC- Director Anette Chambers-Smith and CCA
Plaintiff:
Bonita Williams and Benita Williams
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.
