Cases 21 - 30 of 65
Davenport v. Epps
as 2:2011cv00121
Petitioner:
Marcus Davenport
Respondent:
Christopher B. Epps
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hicks v. Epps et al
as 4:2011cv00025
Petitioner:
Alfred Hicks
Respondent:
Christopher B. Epps and Jim Hood
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Campbell v. Epps
as 1:2011cv00034
Petitioner:
Brian A. Campbell
Respondent:
Christopher B. Epps
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Campbell v. Epps et al
as 1:2010cv00076
Plaintiff:
Brian A. Campbell
Defendant:
Christopher B. Epps, Lawrence Kelly, Shannon Warnock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Guyton v. Epps et al
as 1:2010cv00054
Petitioner:
Derrick Guyton
Respondent:
Christopher B. Epps and State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Commodore v. Epps et al
as 2:2010cv00022
Petitioner:
Edgar Commodore
Respondent:
Christopher B. Epps, James Brewer and Emitt L. Sparkman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Boone v. Epps et al
as 4:2009cv00131
Plaintiff:
Henry Lonzo Boone
Defendant:
Christopher B. Epps, Lawence Kelly and Does 1-20
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stevens v. Epps et al
as 3:2009cv00127
Petitioner:
Tony Stevens
Respondent:
Christopher B. Epps and The Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wiley v. Johnson, et al
as 2:2000cv00130
Petitioner:
William Lee Wiley
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Mississippi , Robert Johnson and Christopher B. Epps
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gilley v. Nelson et al
as 4:2009cv00070
Plaintiff:
Wilbert Turn Gilley
Defendant:
Lola Nelson, Lawrence Kelly and Christopher B. Epps
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.
