Cases 11 - 20 of 29
Hamilton v. Bird
as 1:2015cv01033
Plaintiff:
Charles Hamilton
Defendant:
Kevin Bird
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles Hamilton, Jr. v. William Stephens, Director
as 14-50509
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES HAMILTON, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Hamilton v. State of Florida et al
as 6:2014cv00683
Plaintiff:
Charles Hamilton
Defendant:
State of Florida, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Brevard County and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HAMILTON v. STATE OF FLORIDA et al
as 3:2014cv00128
Plaintiff:
CHARLES HAMILTON
Defendant:
STATE OF FLORIDA, ESCAMBIA COUNTY and ESCAMBIA COUNTY COURT CLERK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamilton v. Stephens
as 1:2013cv00645
Petitioner:
Charles Hamilton, Jr.
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Respondent:
William Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hamilton v. State of Illinois et al
as 1:2012cv01390
Plaintiff:
Charles Hamilton
Defendant:
State of Illinois, Pat Quinn, Attorney General of Illinois and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hamilton v. Johnson
as 4:2012cv01122
Plaintiff:
Louis Charles Hamilton, II
Defendant:
Donnell Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamilton v. North Texas State Hospital et al
as 7:2012cv00053
Plaintiff:
Louis Charles Hamilton
Defendant:
North Texas State Hospital, Jim Smitt, Keli Boyd and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamilton v. North Texas State Hospital et al
as 4:2012cv01014
Plaintiff:
Louis Charles Hamilton
Defendant:
North Texas State Hospital, Jim Smitt, Keli Boyd and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamilton v. Garcia et al
as 4:2012cv00977
Plaintiff:
Louis Charles Hamilton, II
Defendant:
Adrain Garcia, Anorga, Crump and others
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.
