Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Christopher Lumpkin v. Virginia Attorney General
as 24-6258
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE LUMPKIN
Defendant:
VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, KEN JAMES BALDASSARI, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, JAMES C. MARTIN, Attorney and others
Christopher Lumpkin v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-6142
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE LUMPKIN
Defendant:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir., Virginia Department of Corrections, CHADWICK DOTSON, Dir., Virginia Department of Corrections, VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL and others
Lumpkin v. Virginia Attorney General et al
as 3:2023cv00698
Plaintiff:
Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin
Defendant:
Virginia Attorney General, Ken Baldassari, James C. Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lumpkin v. Clarke et al
as 1:2023cv01162
Plaintiff:
Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin
Defendant:
Harold Clarke, Virginia Attorney General, Ken Baldassari and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Bivens Prisoner
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-7094
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
James Martin v. Warden of FCI Hazelton and unknowns
as 22-6594
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES A. MARTIN
Defendant / Appellee:
WARDEN OF FCI HAZELTON AND UNKNOWNS and WARDEN OF USP HAZELTON AND UNKNOWNS
Martin v. Warden of FCI Hazelton and unknowns et al
as 3:2022cv00013
Plaintiff:
James A. Martin
Defendant:
Warden of FCI Hazelton and unknowns and Warden of USP Hazelton and unknowns
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv00022
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
Martin v. USA
as 4:2016cv01071
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
James Earl Martin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
MARTIN v. USA
as 1:2014cv00906
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
JAMES WILLIAM MARTIN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
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.
