Cases 1 - 10 of 756
Mozee v. Chandler et al
as 5:2024cv00121
Plaintiff:
Patrick O Mozee
Defendant:
Nathan Chandler and Jennifer Hamilton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Campa v. Lauderdale-Hamilton, Inc.
as 6:2024cv00266
Plaintiff:
Robert Campa
Defendant:
Lauderdale-Hamilton, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability
Hamilton v. Rule
as 4:2024cv00449
Petitioner:
Brenda Hamilton
Respondent:
Warden FNU Rule
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Hamilton v. Beaumont Police Department et al
as 1:2024cv00175
Plaintiff:
Marcus Anthony Hamilton
Defendant:
Beaumont Police Department, Jefferson County Sheriff Department and State of Texas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hamilton v. State of Texas et al
as 1:2024cv00176
Plaintiff:
Marcus Anthony Hamilton
Defendant:
State of Texas, Jefferson County Sheriff Department and Beaumont Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hamilton v. Warden
as 5:2024cv00065
Petitioner:
Jerry Wayne Hamilton
Respondent:
FCI Texarkana Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Merritt et al v. Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, LLC
as 3:2024cv00107
Plaintiff:
Brad Merritt, Billy Cunningham, Daniel Sanchez and others
Defendant:
Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, LLC
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00819
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00818
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Perez v. Rayford et al
as 9:2024cv00040
Plaintiff:
Roberto Perez
Defendant:
J Rayford, J Hamilton, M McGhee 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.
