Cases 1 - 10 of 62
Houston v. Davenport et al
as 2:2018cv01448
Defendant:
Clevon Randolph and Carter Davenport
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Houston
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Houston v. Davenport et al
as 2:2018cv00834
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Houston
Defendant:
Carter Davenport, Clevon Randolph and Alabama Department of Corrections
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 4
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McGregor v. Thomas et al
as 4:2017cv00593
Plaintiff:
Michael McGregor
Defendant:
Kim Thomas, Jefferson Dunn, Grantt Culliver and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Zeller v. Thomas et al
as 4:2017cv00564
Plaintiff:
Anthony Zeller
Defendant:
Kim Thomas , Jefferson Dunn, Grantt Culliver and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Casey v. Thomas et al
as 4:2017cv00563
Plaintiff:
William Casey
Defendant:
Kim Thomas , Jefferson Dunn, Grantt Culliver and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Townsel v. Thomas et al
as 4:2017cv00516
Plaintiff:
Michael Stanley Townsel
Defendant:
Kim Thomas, Jefferson Dunn, Grantt Culliver and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Harrison v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 4:2016cv01904
Plaintiff:
Venture Harrison
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections , Jefferson S Dunn , Carter Davenport and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The Estate of Marquette F Cummings Jr et al v. Thomas et al
as 2:2015cv02274
Plaintiff:
The Estate of Marquette F Cummings Jr and Angela Gaines
Defendant:
Kim Thomas , Jefferson S Dunn , Carter Davenport and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Ray v. Davenport et al
as 2:2015cv01572
Plaintiff:
Melvin Ray
Defendant:
Carter Davenport, Eric Evans, Gary Malone and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hill v. Davenport et al
as 5:2015cv01498
Petitioner:
Steven Hill, Jr
Respondent:
Carter Davenport and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
