Cases 21 - 30 of 1,217
Stroud v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2016cv02892
Plaintiff:
Pamela Stroud
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Corrections , Bryan Stirling , Lefford Fate
and others
Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act
Epps v. USA
as 4:2016cv00181
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Christopher Jerrod Epps
Cause Of Action: Motion to Vacate Sentence
William Gaskin v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner, et al
as 16-60182
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM LEWIS GASKIN
Defendant - Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DOCTOR RON WOODALL, DOCTOR GWEN WOODLAND
Shawn States v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner
as 16-60084
Petitioner - Appellant:
SHAWN M. STATES
Respondent - Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Harris v. State of Mississippi et al
as 4:2016cv00006
Plaintiff:
Detrick Dewayne Harris
Defendant:
State of Mississippi, Christopher Epps, E. L. Sparkman
and others
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomas Ellis v. Christopher Epps, et al
as 15-60752
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS EARL ELLIS
Defendant - Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, PHIL BRYANT, SERGEANT BARTEE
and others
Ferlando Esco v. Christopher Epp
as 15-60708
Petitioner - Appellant:
FERLANDO ESCO
Respondent - Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS
Ellis v. Epps et al
as 1:2015cv00308
Plaintiff:
Thomas Earl Ellis
Defendant:
Christopher B. Epps, Phil Bryant, Unknown Bartee
and others
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Logan v. Barbour et al
as 4:2015cv00121
Petitioner:
Courtney R. Logan
Respondent:
Haley Barbour, Christopher Epps, Jody Bradley
and others
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Logan v. Barbour et al
as 5:2015cv00080
Plaintiff:
Courtney R. Logan
Defendant:
Haley Barbour, Christopher Epps, Jody Bradley
and others
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
