Cases 1 - 10 of 13
SIBLEY v. MITCHELL COUNTY CAMP INSTITUTION et al
as 1:2021cv00001
Defendant:
Bruce Muzzy, Kim McCloud, DO JOSEPH COOPER and others
Plaintiff:
Donshawn B. Sibley and DONSHAWN B SIBLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sibley v. Mitchell County Camp Institution et al
as 2:2021cv00001
Defendant:
Bruce Muzzy, Kim McCloud, William Terry and others
Plaintiff:
Donshawn B. Sibley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DUCKWORTH v. GRIFFIN et al
as 4:2020cv00502
Defendant:
MEUTH, BRAMLETT, GRIFFIN and others
Plaintiff:
JERRY DUCKWORTH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHAW v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 3:2018cv00082
Defendant:
Warden Billy Wicker, MS IRWIN, Lt. Franklin and others
Plaintiff:
Christopher J. Shaw and Christopher Jason Shaw
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHAW v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2018cv00194
Defendant:
MS IRWIN, JANE DOE, BILLY WICKER and others
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER J SHAW
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
William Duckworth v. Warden, et al
as 12-11648
Petitioner - Appellant:
WILLIAM D. DUCKWORTH
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Nichols v. Head et al
as 5:2010cv00071
Plaintiff:
Johnny Conner Nichols
Defendant:
Fred Head, Brian Owens and Johnny Duckworth
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Duckworth v. Hetzell et al (INMATE 1)
as 3:2010cv00072
Plaintiff:
William D. Duckworth
Defendant:
Gary Hetzell and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Duckworth v. Hetzell et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2010cv00072
Plaintiff:
William D. Duckworth
Defendant:
Gary Hetzell and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Moss v. Blakely et al
as 5:2010cv00028
Plaintiff:
Henry Marvin Moss
Defendant:
Mr. Blakely, Ms Hall, William Terry and others
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.
