Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Simpson v. Gaston
as 0:2019cv00537
Respondent:
Jannita Gaston
Petitioner:
Antonio Simpson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
James Scott v. Albert Pearson
as 15-6365
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES DARNELL SCOTT
Defendant - Appellee:
ALBERT PEARSON, Responsible Authority over South Carolina Dept of Corrections Special Investigation Unit, JANNITA GASTON, South Carolina Dpet of Correction State Classification, WILLIAM BYARS, South Carolina Department of Corrections Director and others
Bernard McFadden v. Cynthia York
as 14-7572
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BERNARD MCFADDEN
Defendant - Appellee:
MS. CYNTHIA YORK, Classification Officer of Kershaw Correctional Institution, MS. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden of KRCI, MS. L. MILLER, a/k/a Lula Miller, First Name Unknown, Lieutenant of KRCI, in their individual or personal capacities and others
Defendant:
JOHN OR JANE DOE, Step 2 Grievance Hearing Officers
Shannon v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
as 6:2012cv02938
Plaintiff:
Daniel A Shannon
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Corrections, William Byars, Jon Ozmint and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Habeeb Malik v. James Sligh, Jr.
as 12-7576
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HABEEB ABDUL MALIK
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES E. SLIGH, JR., JANNITA GASTON, BERNARD MCKIE and others
Scott v. Pearson et al
as 0:2012cv01538
Plaintiff:
James Darnell Scott
Defendant:
Albert Pearson, Jannita Gaston and William Byars
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Malik v. Sligh et al
as 2:2011cv01064
Plaintiff:
Habeeb Abdul Malik
Defendant:
James E Sligh, Jr, Jannita Gaston, Bernard McKie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Malik v. Sligh et al
as 5:2011cv01064
Plaintiff:
Habeeb Abdul Malik
Defendant:
James E Sligh, Jr , Jannita Gaston , Bernard McKie 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.
