Cases 1 - 10 of 95
Steward v. Crow
as 4:2023cv01673
Petitioner:
Randy Andrial Steward
Respondent:
John Crow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ronald Hall v. Warden, et al
as 23-13485
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD JOE HALL
Defendant / Appellee:
WARDEN, JEFFERSON S. DUNN, Prison Commissioner and his cabinet personnel, SHERRY PRICE, Assistant Prison Comm. and others
Ramey v. Fair et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2023cv00581
Plaintiff:
Abraham Ramey
Defendant:
Officer Fair and John Crow
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ginett v. Hamm et al
as 1:2022cv00506
Petitioner:
Geovanni Xavier Ginett
Respondent:
John Hamm, Karen Carter and John Crow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Currington v. Crow et al (INMATE 4)
as 1:2022cv00475
Plaintiff:
DeAndre D. Currington
Defendant:
John Crow, Steven T. Marshall, State of Alabama and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tarrance v. Crow et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2022cv00402
Plaintiff:
Quindarrius Tarrance
Defendant:
John Crow, Steven T. Marshall and State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Walter v. Crow et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2022cv00064
Plaintiff:
Adam Eugene Walter
Defendant:
John Crow, Matthew Stone and Lt. Lewis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Watford et al v. Crow et al
as 6:2021cv06156
Plaintiff:
John Watford and Cydnee Watford
Defendant:
John Crow, Greg Keller and Clayton Green
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Burke v. Crow (INMATE 1)
as 2:2021cv00732
Plaintiff:
Johnathan Nicholas Burke
Defendant:
John Crow
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jacoby v. McCoy et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2021cv00723
Plaintiff:
Brent William Jacoby
Defendant:
Christopher Gordy, Ms. Bibb, NP Ferrell 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.
