Cases 51 - 60 of 82
King v. Neven et al
as 2:2012cv00572
Defendant:
Scott Alexander, Maintenance Mike, Cole Morrow and others
Plaintiff:
Matthew James King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Tafari v. Gettman, et al.,
as 9:2011cv01446
Plaintiff:
InJah Tafari
Defendant:
Gary Gettman, James King, Jason Rushlaw and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sumrall v. Harris et al
as 1:2010cv00128
Plaintiff:
Ammon Ra Sumrall
Defendant:
Officer Harris, Officer Hart, Officer Taylor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
King v. Louisiana State Penitentiary
as 6:2010cv00858
Plaintiff:
James King
Defendant:
Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Tony DeLoach v. State of South Carolina
as 10-6026
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TONY DELOACH
Plaintiff:
JOHN P. BROWN, JAMES E. ELLISON, JAMES R. ODOM and others
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CHARLES CONDON, SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LEGISLATURE and others
KING v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2009cv05508
Petitioner:
JAMES KING
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Anderson v. State of Missouri, Department of Corrections, Board of Probation and Parole et al
as 4:2009cv01131
Plaintiff:
Michael K. Anderson
Defendant:
State of Missouri, Department of Corrections, Board of Probation and Parole, Shelly Crump, Karen Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2009cv00382
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Matthew King v. E.K. McDaniel, et al
as 08-17561
Petitioner - Appellant:
MATTHEW JAMES KING
Respondent - Appellee:
E.K. MCDANIEL, Warden and NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
