Cases 1 - 10 of 22
McCray v. McCray Lumber Company et al
as 2:2023cv02175
Plaintiff:
Stewart P. McCray
Defendant:
McCray Lumber Company, Chandler McCray and Harry C. McCray, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud
Bellamy (ID 53454) v. State of Kansas et al
as 5:2023cv03051
Plaintiff:
Ronnie Allen Bellamy, Jr.
Defendant:
State of Kansas, Jeff Zmuda, Kansas Civil Service and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Washburn (ID 82688) v. Cheeks
as 5:2023cv03027
Plaintiff:
Allen Dean Washburn
Defendant:
Chandler Cheeks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Trester (ID 61594) v. Cheeks
as 5:2023cv03024
Petitioner:
Louis Trester
Respondent:
Chandler Cheeks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barnes (ID 91619) v. Cheeks
as 5:2022cv03299
Petitioner:
Anthony R. Barnes
Respondent:
Chandler Cheeks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mullendore (ID 104410) v. Cheeks et al
as 5:2022cv03160
Plaintiff:
Randall Kent Mullendore
Defendant:
Chandler Cheeks, Shannon Meyer, (fnu) Skidmore and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomas (ID 80566) v. Cheeks
as 5:2022cv03150
Petitioner:
Matthew R. Thomas
Respondent:
Chandler Cheeks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Barnes (ID 91619) v. Cheeks
as 5:2022cv03138
Petitioner:
Anthony R. Barnes
Respondent:
Chandler Cheeks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barber (ID 43901) v. Cheeks
as 5:2022cv03130
Petitioner:
Robert E. Barber
Respondent:
Chandler Cheeks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Strader (ID 66677) et al v. Cheeks et al
as 5:2022cv03124
Plaintiff:
James C. Strader and Steve Allen Vaughan
Defendant:
Chandler Cheeks, Jeff Zmuda, Aramark and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
