Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Enchanted Green LLC v. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission et al
as 2:2023cv00696
Plaintiff:
Enchanted Green LLC
Defendant:
Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, William Saliski, Jr., Sam Blakemore and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Schramm v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2023cv00858
Plaintiff:
Justin Schramm
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, John Hamm, Thomas Woodfin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Waldman v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2023cv00857
Plaintiff:
Adam Kieth Waldman and Adam Keith Waldman
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections, John Hamm, Thomas Woodfin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. USA
as 2:2021cv12274
Petitioner:
Dion Robinson
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Robinson v. Moynihan, et al.
as 3:2021cv00122
Defendant:
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, Abby Moynihan, Glen A. Messina President and CEO doing business as PHH Mortgage Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
Dion Robinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
Robinson v. Williams
as 4:2020cv01039
Petitioner:
Dion Robinson
Respondent:
Warden Mark K. Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Robinson v. United States Of America
as 1:2019cv23050
Plaintiff:
Dion Robinson
Defendant:
United States Of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
USA v. Dion Robinson
as 17-14923
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DION ROBINSON
Robinson v. Redmond et al
as 3:2016cv01953
Plaintiff:
Roderick Dion Robinson
Defendant:
Nigel Howard Redmond and Anthony Pargas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROBINSON v. SUPERINTENDENT
as 1:2012cv01483
Petitioner:
RONALD DION ROBINSON
Respondent:
MR. BRIAN SMITH and SUPERINTENDENT, PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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.
