Cases 1 - 10 of 2,266
Melvin Roane v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-7201
Defendant:
CHADWICK DOTSON and HAROLD W. CLARKE
Plaintiff:
MELVIN M. ROANE
Quinten Parrish v. Harold Clarke
as 24-7097
Respondent:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir. of Virginia Department of Corrections
Petitioner:
QUINTEN D. PARRISH
Washington v. Clarke et al
as 2:2024cv00657
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke and Chadwick Dotson
Petitioner:
Torrean V. Washington
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-7028
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Terry Riggleman v. Harold Clarke
as 24-6995
Defendant:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, In his individual and official capacities, MARK AMONETTE, In his individual and official capacities and KYLE SMITH, In his individual and official capacities
Plaintiff:
TERRY A. RIGGLEMAN
Daniel Atkins v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-6964
Petitioner:
DANIEL ATKINS
Respondent:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Virginia Department of Corrections and CHADWICK DOTSON, Virginia Department of Corrections
Joseph Merlino, III v. Harold Clarke
as 24-6958
Respondent:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
Petitioner:
JOSEPH VINCENT MERLINO, III
Phoenix v. Dotson, et al
as 3:2024cv00625
Defendant:
David Robinson, Dana Watson, Darrell Miller and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel W. Phoenix
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lewis v. Clarke et al
as 7:2024cv00608
Defendant:
Correctional Officer John Doe #2, Correctional Officer Edwards, Nurse Jane Doe #1 and others
Plaintiff:
Solomon Jordan Lewis and Solomon Jordan Lewis, IV
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Benjamin Carter v. Beth Cabell
as 24-6741
Defendant:
JOHN DOES, JOSHUA BRANCH, in his individual and official capacity, KEVIN MCCOY, in his individual and offical capacity and others
Plaintiff:
BENJAMIN FORREST CARTER
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.
