Cases 1 - 10 of 99
SCOTT v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
as 5:2024cv00012
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER WAYNE SCOTT
Defendant:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 Declaratory Judgment
Jerome Clarke v. Georgia Department of Corrections
as 23-10485
Petitioner:
JEROME CLARKE
Respondent:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
In re: Waseem Daker
as 22-11983
Petitioner:
In re: WASEEM DAKER
Respondent:
COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JACK KOON, ROBERT TOOLE and others
Albert Gawlak v. Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Correcti, et al
as 21-14173
Petitioner / Appellant:
ALBERT A. GAWLAK
Respondent / Appellee:
COMMISSIONER OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and WARDEN
David Green v. Gale Thomson, et al
as 21-13368
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID KEITH GREEN
Defendant / Appellee:
GALE THOMSON, SAMATHA BROWN, PAMELA OSQATHARPE and others
Detrich Battle v. Georgia Department of Corrections
as 21-13198
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DETRICH BATTLE
Defendant / Appellee:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Roderick Smith v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
as 21-13191
Petitioner / Appellant:
RODERICK B. SMITH
Respondent / Appellee:
COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
David Long v. Warden, et al
as 21-13105
Petitioner / Appellant:
DAVID HEATH LONG
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN and COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Waseem Daker v. Commissioner of the Georgia DOC, et al
as 21-11949
Defendant / Appellee:
STEVE UPTON, Deputy Facilities Director, COMMISSIONER OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEPUTY FACILITIES DIRECTOR and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WASEEM DAKER
Daniel Cobble v. Commissioner of G.D.C., et al
as 21-11844
Not Classified By Court:
SERVICE
Respondent / Appellee:
COMMISSIONER OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and TREVONZA BOBBITT
Petitioner / Appellant:
DANIEL ERIC COBBLE
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.
