Cases 51 - 60 of 143
Sparks v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2010cv03283
Petitioner:
Anthony Sparks
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Derek Berry v. Brian Broadfoot, et al
as 10-15356
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DEREK BERRY
Defendant - Appellee:
PAUL WHALEY, BILLY MITCHEM, BRIAN BROADFOOT and others
Marelo Jenkins v. Billy Mitchem, et al
as 10-15293
Petitioner - Appellant:
MARELO JENKINS
Respondent - Appellee:
BILLY MITCHEM and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Douglas v. Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles et al
as 5:2010cv03069
Plaintiff:
James Anthony Douglas
Defendant:
Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles, Billy Mitchem, Diane Wynn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sanderson v. Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Commission et al
as 2:2010cv00878
Plaintiff:
Donald Ray Sanderson
Defendant:
Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Commission, Montgomery County Jail, Robert E. Luske, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reed v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2010cv02629
Plaintiff:
Lester Carpenter Reed
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem, Jimmy D. Patrick, David Tully and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Partain v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2010cv02520
Petitioner:
Mark Anthony Partain
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ronald Garner, Jr. v. Billy Mitchem, et al
as 10-14195
Petitioner - Appellant:
RONALD GARNER, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
BILLY MITCHEM, Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL
Galvez v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2010cv02156
Petitioner:
Santiago Galvez
Respondent:
Billy Mitchem and The Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Green v. Mitchem et al
as 5:2010cv02080
Plaintiff:
Christian Ivan Green
Defendant:
Billy Mitchem, Jimmy Patrick, Earl Joyner and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
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.
