Cases 1 - 10 of 39
BROWN v. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA et al
as 7:2022cv00112
Plaintiff:
BROWN BROWN
Defendant:
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE, INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
WHIDDON v. POWELL et al
as 7:2021cv00161
Plaintiff:
JASON KYLE WHIDDON
Defendant:
Sheriff CARLTON POWELL, KEVIN DENNIS, THOMAS COUNTY JAIL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ADAMS v. POWELL
as 7:2021cv00145
Plaintiff:
PHILLIP ADAMS
Defendant:
Sheriff CARLTON POWELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES V. THOMAS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
as 7:2021cv00095
Plaintiff:
CEDRIC JONES
Defendant:
THOMAS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Sheriff CARLTON POWELL, Lt VIRGINIA WILLIAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VICKS v. POWELL
as 7:2021cv00070
Defendant:
Sheriff CARLTON POWELL
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN VICKS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Freeman v. Powell
as 4:2020cv00301
Not Classified By Court:
Attorney General State of Georgia (Notice Only)
Petitioner:
Charlie James Freeman, Jr.
Respondent:
R. Carlton Powell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HURST v. POWELL
as 7:2020cv00148
Plaintiff:
GREG DEWAYNE HURST
Defendant:
CARLTON POWELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GASKINS v. JAMES et al
as 7:2020cv00088
Defendant:
TIM WATKINS, ROBIN BARROW, Sheriff CARLTON POWELL and others
Plaintiff:
ROBIN DEWAYNE GASKINS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
STEPHENS V. THOMAS COUNTY JAIL
as 7:2019cv00182
Defendant:
THOMAS COUNTY JAIL, Captain RON JAMES and Lt. VIRGINIA WILLIAMS
Plaintiff:
KELVIN STEPHENS
Respondent:
Sheriff R CARLTON POWELL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
THIGPEN v. POWELL et al
as 7:2019cv00176
Defendant:
Sheriff CARLTON POWELL, LOUIS SCHOFIELD, ROBYN BARROW and others
Plaintiff:
RONNIE THIGPEN
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.
