Cases 81 - 90 of 103
Sutton v. Allen et al
as 2:2008cv02012
Petitioner:
Ronald Sutton
Respondent:
Richard Allen and Billy Mitchem
Defendant:
Attorney General of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Mayfield v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2008cv01811
Petitioner:
Andy Calvin Mayfield
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and The Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Miller v. Mitchem et al
as 2:2008cv01776
Petitioner:
Johnny Miller, III
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of ALabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Pride v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2008cv01195
Petitioner:
June Allen Pride
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Pruitt v. Mitchem et al
as 4:2008cv01046
Petitioner:
Stacy Ramon Pruitt
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Williams v. Mitchem et al
as 4:2008cv00873
Petitioner:
LaKeith D. Williams
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Knight v. Mitchem et al (INMATE1)
as 2:2008cv00356
Plaintiff:
Tommy James Knight
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem and Troy King
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Massey v. Mitchem et al (INMATE3)
as 1:2008cv00198
Plaintiff:
Jim Edward Massey
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clemons v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2008cv00273
Petitioner:
Michael A Clemons
Respondent:
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)
Snow v. Mitchem et al
as 7:2008cv00076
Petitioner:
Terry Ray Snow
Respondent:
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)
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.
