Cases 1 - 10 of 413
Bownes v. State of Mississippi et al
as 3:2023cv00115
Plaintiff:
Ulysses Bownes
Defendant:
State of Mississippi, Jim Hood, Ralph Doxey and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bownes v. Hood et al
as 3:2023cv00114
Plaintiff:
Ulysses Bownes
Defendant:
Jim Hood, Ralph Doxey, Raymond Byrd and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bownes v. State of Mississippi et al
as 3:2023cv00116
Plaintiff:
Ulysses Bownes
Defendant:
State of Mississippi, Jim Hood, Ralph Doxey and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Epps v. Gordon et al
as 3:2022cv00623
Plaintiff:
Christopher B Epps
Defendant:
Jeremy Gordon and Jeremy Gordon PLLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Johnson v. Epps et al
as 3:2017cv00856
Plaintiff:
Cleveland E. Johnson
Defendant:
Christopher B. Epps and Shannon Warnock
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kennedy v. Bryant et al
as 4:2017cv00142
Plaintiff:
Soloman S. Kennedy
Defendant:
Phil Bryant, Haley Barabour, Tamara Hall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kennedy v. Bryant et al
as 1:2017cv07140
Plaintiff:
Soloman S Kennedy
Defendant:
Phil Bryant, Haley Barabour, Tamara Hall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wedgeworth v. State of Mississippi et al
as 3:2017cv00730
Defendant:
State of Mississippi, M.D.O.C., Christopher B. Epps and others
Plaintiff:
Wiley Wedgeworth
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ted Stone v. Christopher Epp
as 17-60483
Petitioner - Appellant:
TED STONE
Respondent - Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS
Zachary Johnson v. Christopher Epps, et al
as 17-60447
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ZACHARY JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, JOHNNIE DENMARK, MARY DIXON and others
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.
