Cases 1 - 10 of 22
MUTAZZ v. OLIVER et al
as 5:2024cv00107
Plaintiff:
SAID MUTAZZ
Defendant:
TYRONE OLIVER, GREGORY SAMPSON, TIMOTHY SALES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SMITH v. SAMPSON
as 5:2024cv00048
Petitioner:
EVERETT SMITH
Respondent:
GREGORY SAMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WHITTLE v. SAMPSON et al
as 5:2024cv00026
Petitioner:
THOMAS ANDREW WHITTLE
Respondent:
WARDEN GREGORY SAMPSON, STATE OF GEORGIA and KELLI ADAMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
STEWART v. SAMPSON
as 5:2024cv00003
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER BRYAN STEWART
Defendant:
WARDEN GREGORY SAMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
KENNEY v. OLIVER et al
as 5:2023cv00509
Plaintiff:
WALTER LAWRENCE KENNEY
Defendant:
GDC COMMISSIONER TYRONE OLIVER, WARDEN GREGORY SAMPSON, DR MICHAEL WOODARD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Whiting v. Sampson
as 1:2023cv05406
Petitioner:
Preston Whiting
Respondent:
State of Georgia and Warden Gregory Sampson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BALL v. SAMPSON
as 5:2023cv00445
Petitioner:
TRAVIS BALL
Respondent:
WARDEN GREGORY SAMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clark v. Sampson
as 1:2023cv04879
Petitioner:
Rodney Clark
Respondent:
Gregory Sampson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BEY v. WHITTINGTON, et al.
as 5:2023cv00354
Plaintiff:
ABDUL MALIK BEY
Defendant:
LAWRENCE WHITTINGTON, WARDEN CHARLES MIMS, TIMOTHY SALES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plummer v. Sampson
as 2:2023cv00145
Petitioner:
Kelly Plummer
Respondent:
Warden Gregory Sampson
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.
