Cases 21 - 30 of 46
Eric Miller v. Kenneth Primus
as 19-12394
Defendant / Appellee:
KENNETH PRIMUS, Hancock State Prison
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ERIC J. MILLER
MOSS v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2019cv00227
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL MOSS
Defendant:
JACK RANDALL SAULS, TREVONZA BOBBITT, Clay Nix and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FAISON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2019cv00228
Defendant:
CLAY NIX, JACK RANDALL SAULS, TREVONZA BOBBITT and others
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY ELIJAH FAISON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
DOTSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2019cv00225
Defendant:
JACK RANDALL SAULS, TREVONZA BOBBITT, CLAY NIX and others
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY DOTSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GEIGER v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2019cv00198
Defendant:
HANCOCK STATE PRISON, TREVONZA BOBBITT, CLAY NIX and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES CLIFFORD GEIGER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROBERSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2019cv00201
Defendant:
JACK RANDALL SAULS, TREVONZA BOBBITT, WILLIAM CLAY NIX and others
Plaintiff:
ROBERT DENNISON and DENNIS ROBERSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
POWELL v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2019cv00202
Plaintiff:
JD POWELL, JR
Defendant:
JACK RANDALL SAULS, TREVONZA BOBBITT, WILLIAM CLAY NIX and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GHIDEN v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2019cv00197
Defendant:
JACK RANDY SAULS, CLAY NIX, RICKY MYRICK and others
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY GHIDEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2019cv00045
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451
GOSS v. LIFT et al
as 5:2018cv00399
Plaintiff:
CLEMENT R GOSS
Defendant:
JOHN AND OR JANE DOES, HANCOCK STATE PRISON and DOCTOR LIFT
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.
