Cases 1 - 10 of 62
Sudberry v. Junp et al.
as 1:2026cv01100
Plaintiff:
James Darnell Rome Sudberry
Defendant:
Ms. Junp, Corrections Officer Euba, Corrections Officer John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections et al
as 0:2026cv01733
Plaintiff:
James Darnell Scott
Defendant:
South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, Lt. M. Cleveland, Contraband Lt. Mr. Allen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Sudberry v. May et al
as 1:2026cv00993
Plaintiff:
James Darnell Rome Sudberry
Defendant:
Warden May, C. Thorne, Plank and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sudberry v. Thorne et al
as 1:2026cv00407
Plaintiff:
James Darnell Rome Sudberry
Defendant:
C. Thorne, Plank and Warden May
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
In re: James Sudberry
as 25-3953
Petitioner:
In re: JAMES DARNELL ROME SUDBERRY
Respondent:
WARDEN, MADISON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
In re: James Sudberry
as 25-3297
Petitioner:
In re: JAMES DARNELL ROME SUDBERRY
Respondent:
WARDEN, MADISON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Sudberry v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution
as 1:2024cv00394
Respondent:
Warden, Madison Correctional Institution
Petitioner:
James Darnell Rome Sudberry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
COMPTON v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv17606
Plaintiff:
JAMES DARNELL COMPTON
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
DARNELL v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv60354
Plaintiff:
JAMES DARNELL
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
James Black v. Matthew Crone, et al
as 21-3494
Defendant / Appellee:
ERIE COUNTY HEALTH, MATTHEW CRONE and OTTAWA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES DARNELL BLACK
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.
