Cases 21 - 30 of 45
Priest v. Destiny
as 0:2016cv60924
Plaintiff:
Brandon Samuel Priest
Defendant:
Frazier Destiny, Nicole Alphanse, Michael J. Satz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2015cv00936
Plaintiff:
John Brown
Defendant:
Secretary, Department of Corrections, Warden of Reception & Medical Center, Ellen Link and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Daniel et al
as 3:2015cv00618
Plaintiff:
Devandal Bernard Thomas
Defendant:
Williams E Daniel, Sarah E Grantham, Julian Aviles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Whitfield v. Morgan et al
as 3:2014cv00770
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Whitfield
Defendant:
Durwood Morgan , J. B. Hancock , S. Stapleton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Watson v. Martin et al
as 3:2013cv01572
Plaintiff:
Tyson N. Watson
Defendant:
Mrs. J.M. Martin, Mr. S.W. Lister, Mr. R.D. Hancock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Briggs v. Hancock et al
as 3:2013cv00212
Plaintiff:
Robert J. Briggs
Defendant:
Robert D. Hancock, Aaron E. Cobb, Joseph F. Allen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Whitehead v. Sheldon et al
as 2:2012cv00197
Plaintiff:
Bruce Whitehead
Defendant:
George Sheldon, Suzonne Kline, Geo Group, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Daniel et al
as 3:2012cv00101
Plaintiff:
Devandal Thomas
Defendant:
Williams E Daniel, Michael A Teston, Robert D. Hancock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CHAMP v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
as 4:2011cv00563
Plaintiff:
SEAN PHILLIP CHAMP
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHRISTOPHER LANDRUM, KENNETH S TUCKER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Briggs v. Hancock et al
as 3:2011cv00173
Plaintiff:
Robert James Briggs
Defendant:
Robert D. Hancock, Aaron E. Cobb, Joseph F. Allen and others
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.
