Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Girlis Serratt v. Warden, Fountain Correctional Facility, et al
as 23-13488
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GIRLIS HUGH SERRATT
Defendant / Appellee:
WARDEN, FOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Serratt v. Butler et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv00625
Plaintiff:
Bobby Gene Smith, Jr., Jonathan Yancy, Roy Murphy Rutledge and others
Defendant:
Warden Butler, Kay Ivey, Jefferson S. Dunn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Serratt v. Riley et al (INMATE 1)
as 5:2018cv00959
Plaintiff:
Girlis Hugh Serratt
Defendant:
Bob Riley, Troy King, Kim Thomas and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Serratt v. Riley et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2018cv00478
Plaintiff:
Girlis Hugh Serratt
Defendant:
Bob Riley, Troy King, Kim Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Serratt v. Jones et al
as 6:2017cv00908
Petitioner:
Girlis Hugh Serratt
Respondent:
Karla Jones and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Girlis Serratt v. James Brotherton, et al
as 10-10747
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GIRLIS HUGH SERRATT
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES C. BROTHERTON, JUDGE, JHON M. TIREY, BILL ADARI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY and others
Serratt v. Brotherton et al
as 2:2009cv01400
Plaintiff:
Girlis Hugh Serratt
Defendant:
James C. Brotherton, Jhon M Tirey, Bill Adari and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Serratt v. Giles et al
as 6:2009cv01145
Petitioner:
Girlis Hugh Serratt
Respondent:
Giles, Monk and The Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Serratt v. Brotherton et al
as 2:2009cv00219
Plaintiff:
Girlis Hugh Serratt
Defendant:
James C. Brotherton, Jhon M. Tyre, Bill Adari and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
