Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Jones v. Albright et al
as 1:2011cv00134
Petitioner:
Beverly Jo Jones
Respondent:
Frank Albright and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Beverly Jones v. Frank Albright, et al
as 10-12605
Petitioner - Appellant:
BEVERLY JO JONES
Respondent - Appellee:
FRANK ALBRIGHT and TROY KING
Beverly Jones, et al v. Gladys Deese, et al
as 10-12559
Interested Party - Appellant:
BEVERLY JO JONES
Defendant - Appellee:
GLADYS DEESE, Warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, in her official capacity,, MARY CARTER, Director of Birmingham Work Release Center, in her official capacity, RONALD CAVANAUGH, Treatment Director, ADOC and others
Jones v. Albright et al
as 1:2009cv00600
Petitioner:
Beverly Jo Jones
Respondent:
Frank Albright and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. Albright et al
as 1:2009cv00398
Petitioner:
Beverly Jo Jones
Respondent:
Frank Albright and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. Albright et al
as 4:2009cv00722
Petitioner:
Beverly Jo Jones
Respondent:
Frank Albright and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv00308
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Jones v. State of Alabama
as 1:2008cv00333
Plaintiff:
Beverly Jo Jones
Defendant:
State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Jones v. Social Security Administration
as 2:2008cv01265
Plaintiff:
Beverly Jo Jones
Defendant:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jones v. Pilgrim
as 2:2008cv00458
Petitioner:
Beverly Jo Jones
Respondent:
J Jerry Pilgrim
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.
