Cases 41 - 50 of 98
Thomas v. Mitchem et al
as 6:2010cv01793
Petitioner:
Melvin Thomas
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Leeks v. Mitchem et al
as 4:2010cv01720
Petitioner:
Anthony Brandon Leeks
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Sparks v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2010cv01498
Petitioner:
Anthony Sparks
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Owens v. Mitchem et al
as 6:2010cv01167
Petitioner:
Raymond Paul Owens
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cravey v. Mitchem et al
as 2:2010cv01096
Petitioner:
Eugene LaFayette Cravey
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Anderson v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2010cv00948
Petitioner:
Curtis Anderson
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Williams v. Mitchem et al
as 2:2010cv00862
Plaintiff:
James Leo Williams
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem and Charles Brock
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Patterson v. Mitchem et al
as 4:2010cv00768
Petitioner:
Larry Patterson
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)
Landers v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2010cv00755
Petitioner:
Christopher Taft Landers
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and The Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Griffith v. Mitchem et al
as 4:2010cv00397
Petitioner:
Jody Edwin Griffith
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)
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.
