Cases 1 - 10 of 18
Adams v. Murray et al
as 4:2022cv00736
Plaintiff:
Lucas Bradley Adams
Defendant:
Sheriff Bill Murray, Paul Monk, Cain and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dawkins v. KGP Telecommunications, Inc. (MAG +)
as 2:2022cv00260
Plaintiff:
Michael Dawkins
Defendant:
KGP Telecommunications, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601 Family and Medical Leave Act
Smith v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv01630
Defendant:
I and I, Alabama Department of Corrections, M. C. Dawkins and others
Plaintiff:
Christopher Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv00743
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, Randall Sandlin, Staff Attorneys and others
Plaintiff:
Christopher Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
J.D.P. v. Montgomery County Board of Education et al
as 2:2020cv00420
Defendant:
Melissa B. Snowden, Lesa Keith, David Hodge and others
Plaintiff:
J. D. P.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. United States et al
as 4:2020cv00059
Defendant:
Mitchell, United States, John Kitchens and others
Plaintiff:
Charla Lynn Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dawkins v. United States of America
as 7:2019cv08047
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Tevin Kyle Dawkins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00292
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00991
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Robinson Miller v. Montgomery County Board of Education et al
as 2:2018cv00512
Plaintiff:
Bridgette Robinson Miller
Defendant:
Montgomery County Board of Education, Ann Roy Moore, Robert Porterfield and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
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.
