Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Randolph v. Dzurendas
as 2:2024cv00106
Petitioner:
Louis Randolph and Clyde Lewis
Respondent:
James Dzurenda
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Buckley v. Washoe County Detention Facility
as 3:2022cv00268
Plaintiff:
Clyde Buckley, III
Defendant:
Washoe County Detention Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lewis v. Dzurenda et al
as 2:2019cv01729
Plaintiff:
Clyde Lewis and Louis Randolph
Defendant:
M. Travis, James Dzurenda, Timothy Filson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Purcell v. Rowley et al
as 3:2016cv00727
Defendant:
ESP Doctor, Jones and C/O M. Rowley
Plaintiff:
Clyde Purcell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Means v. LeGrand et al
as 2:2013cv01595
Defendant:
Attorney General of the State of Nevada and Robert LeGrand
Plaintiff:
Clyde Means
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Means v. LeGrand et al
as 3:2013cv00224
Respondent:
Robert LeGrand and Nevada Attorney General
Petitioner:
Clyde Means
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Briggs v. Connett et al
as 2:2011cv01363
Plaintiff:
Brascia Briggs
Defendant:
Brian Connett, Clyde Gafeney, William Glass and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Randolph v. McDaniel et al
as 3:2011cv00077
Petitioner:
Clyde Lewis
Respondent:
E. K. McDaniel and Nevada Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Means v. Palmer et al
as 3:2010cv00413
Petitioner:
Clyde H. Means
Respondent:
Nevada Attorney General and Jack Palmer
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wright v. Nevens et al
as 3:2008cv00243
Plaintiff:
Brian Wright
Defendant:
Dwight Nevens, Clyde Willis, Mr. Shaulis and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
