Cases 101 - 110 of 143
Peoples v. Mitchem et al
as 2:2009cv01232
Petitioner:
Quincy Peoples
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mackey v. Mitchem et al (INMATE3)
as 2:2009cv00550
Plaintiff:
Jamie Allen Mackey
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dupree v. Mitchem et al
as 4:2009cv00964
Plaintiff:
John D. Dupree
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Peoples v. Mitchem et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2009cv00441
Plaintiff:
Quincy Peoples
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McNabb v. Mitchem et al (INMATE3)
as 2:2009cv00362
Plaintiff:
Willie C. McNabb
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem and Troy King
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Bagley v. Mitchem et al
as 2:2009cv00703
Petitioner:
Jonathan Wesley Bagley
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Roberts v. Mitchem et al
as 3:2009cv00517
Petitioner:
Thomas James Roberts
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Sunday v. Lee County Circuit Court et al (INMATE1)
as 3:2009cv00202
Plaintiff:
Timothy Lee Sunday
Defendant:
Lee County Circuit Court, State of Alabama, Billy Mitchem and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Allen v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2009cv00457
Petitioner:
Steven Craig Allen
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Patterson v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2009cv00264
Petitioner:
Benjamin Chadwick Patterson
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
