Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Gary-Bey v. United States Federal Corporation et al
as 7:2024cv00281
Petitioner:
Gregory Tyrone Gary-Bey
Respondent:
United States Federal Corporation and Commonwealth of Virginia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00499
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gregory Gary v. Harold Clarke
as 22-7304
Petitioner / Appellant:
GREGORY TYRONE GARY, a/k/a Gregory Tyrone Gary-Bey
Respondent / Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections and JEFFERY B. KISER, Warden, Red Onion State Prison
Gregory Gary-Bey v. Mark Herring
as 16-6104
Petitioner - Appellant:
GREGORY TYRONE GARY-BEY
Respondent - Appellee:
MARK R. HERRING, Attorney General of Virginia and KEITH W. DAVIS, Warden, Sussex I State Prison
Gregory Gary-Bey v. Mark Herring
as 16-6105
Petitioner - Appellant:
GREGORY TYRONE GARY-BEY
Respondent - Appellee:
MARK R. HERRING, Attorney General of Virginia and KEITH W. DAVIS, Warden, Sussex I State Prison
Gregory Gary-Bey v. Janet Polavek
as 15-7760
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GREGORY TYRONE GARY-BEY, a/k/a Gregory Tyrone Gary
Defendant - Appellee:
JANET POLAVEK, Secretary of Corporation, BRYAN M. RHODE, Secretary of Public Safety and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Director
Gary-Bey v. Polavek et al
as 2:2015cv00401
Plaintiff:
Gregory Tyrone Gary-Bey
Defendant:
Janet Polavek, Brian M. Rhode and Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gary-Bey v. Herring et al
as 2:2015cv00160
Petitioner:
Gregory Tyrone Gary-Bey
Respondent:
Mark R. Herring and Keith W. Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Gray-Bey v. Commonwealth of Virginia
as 2:2014cv00258
Plaintiff:
Gregory Tyrone Gary-Bey
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Virginia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
