Cases 11 - 20 of 20
Randolph v. City of Baldwin Police Department et al
as 2:2019cv00147
Defendant:
John Doe #5, John Doe #4, Chief of Police and others
Plaintiff:
Joshua Brian Randolph
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sweeney v. Woodward et al
as 2:2019cv00125
Respondent:
Officer S. Bowman, Stephanie Woodward, Mollie M. Anderson and others
Petitioner:
Terence Joseph Sweeney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Randolph v. City of Baldwin, Georgia et al
as 2:2019cv00044
Defendant:
John Doe #5, John Doe #4, John Doe #1 and others
Plaintiff:
Joshua Brian Randolph
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ivey et al v. Mann et al
as 1:2019cv00872
Petitioner:
Marcus D. Ivey and Marvis McDaniel-Ivey
Respondent:
Jeffrey Mann, Police Officer Landry, Gary Piper and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Moss v. Seawell et al
as 2:2018cv00149
Defendant:
City of Brunswick, David Seawell, Chris Stewart and others
Plaintiff:
Bernard Moss, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Wilson v. Vanalstine et al
as 1:2017cv00615
Plaintiff:
Christopher B. Wilson
Defendant:
Jim Vanalstine, Fulton County, Theodore Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mays v. Duteau et al
as 1:2017cv00204
Plaintiff:
Willie Mays
Defendant:
Abner D. Duteau, King, Chief of Police and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mays v. Duteau et al
as 1:2016cv04409
Plaintiff:
Willie Mays
Defendant:
Abner D. Duteau, King of C.I.U. #2, Chief of Police and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hurt v. State of Mississippi et al.
as 4:2015cv00094
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Hurt
Defendant:
The State of Mississippi, Chief of Police, All Law Enforcement Officials and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dupree v. Pelham City Municipal Jail et al
as 1:2011cv00588
Plaintiff:
Brian Aldrich Dupree
Defendant:
Pelham City Municipal Jail, City Chief of Police, McNeil 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.
