Cases 1 - 10 of 108
Winding RESTRICTED FILER v. McClure
as 5:2024cv00038
Plaintiff:
James C. Winding *RESTRICTED FILER*
Defendant:
Marc McClure
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Winding v. Cain
as 3:2024cv00181
Plaintiff:
James C. Winding
Defendant:
Burl Cain
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Winding RESTRICTED FILER v. McClure
as 4:2024cv00017
Plaintiff:
James C. Winding *DO NOT FILE*
Defendant:
Marc McClure
Petitioner:
James C. Winding RESTRICTED FILER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Winding v. McClure
as 5:2023cv00073
Plaintiff:
James C. Winding
Defendant:
Marc McClure
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Winding v. McClure
as 4:2023cv00149
Plaintiff:
James C. Winding *DO NOT FILE*
Defendant:
Marc McClure
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Winding v. Reeves et al
as 3:2023cv00315
Plaintiff:
James C. Winding
Defendant:
Govornor Tate Reeves, MDCO Commissioner Burl Cain, MS Attorney General Lynn Fitch and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Winding v. McClure
as 23-60252
Plaintiff / Appellant:
James C. Winding
Defendant / Appellee:
Marc McClure, Superintendent and Raymond Roberts, Warden, Mississippi State Penitentiary
Winding v. McClure et al
as 5:2023cv00029
Plaintiff:
James C. Winding
Defendant:
Marc McClure and Attorney General of State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Winding v. McClure et al
as 3:2023cv00071
Petitioner:
James C. Winding
Respondent:
Marc McClure and Attorney General of State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
