Cases 1 - 10 of 643
Chappell v. Unknown Party #1 et al
as 1:2024cv00358
Plaintiff:
Markeese Chappell
Defendant:
Unknown Party #1, Scott Wriggelsworth, Ingham County Correctional Facility and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chappel v. Semple
as 3:2024cv00406
Plaintiff:
Todd Chappel
Defendant:
Scott Semple
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chappell v. State of Colorado, et al
as 24-1100
Petitioner:
ARTHUR JAMES CHAPPELL
Respondent:
STATE OF COLORADO and ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Campbell v. Badalamenti et al
as 8:2024cv00306
Plaintiff:
Remoi Campbell
Defendant:
John Badalamenti, Kyle C. Dudek, Nicholas P. Mizell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chappell v. State of Colorado, et al
as 24-1033
Petitioner:
ARTHUR JAMES CHAPPELL
Respondent:
STATE OF COLORADO and ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Chappell v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi et al
as 1:2024cv00015
Plaintiff:
Grady Eugene Chappell
Defendant:
City of Biloxi, Mississippi and Unknown Kelly
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jones v. Chappel et al
as 3:2024cv00002
Plaintiff:
Justin Ezra Jones
Defendant:
f/n/u Chappel, Kim Judy and Southern Health Partners
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WARREN v. REAGLE et al
as 1:2023cv02093
Plaintiff:
LARRY WARREN
Defendant:
DENNIS REAGLE, CHLOE WARGNY, CHRISTINA CONYERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chappell v. McConahay
as 4:2023cv02235
Petitioner:
Ronald Chappell
Respondent:
Warden Tim McConahay
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Chappell v. Biloxi Police Dept. et al
as 1:2023cv00314
Plaintiff:
Grady Eugene Chappell
Defendant:
Biloxi Police Dept. and Unknown Kelly
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
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.
