Cases 1 - 10 of 72
Pelko v. Perales et al
as 2:2024cv00004
Plaintiff:
John Douglas Pelko and John D Pelko
Defendant:
Perales and Ms Villareal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pelko v. Perales et al
as 2:2023cv00339
Plaintiff:
John Douglas Pelko and John D Pelko
Defendant:
Perales and Ms. Villarreal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pelko v. Stith et al
as 2:2023cv00296
Plaintiff:
John Douglas Pelko and John D Pelko
Defendant:
Judge David Stith, Sheriff J.C. Hooper, Nueces County Jail and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Pelko v. Officer Mixon et al
as 2:2023cv00282
Plaintiff:
John Douglas Pelko
Defendant:
Officer Mixon, Officer Fielder, Sheriff JC. Hooper and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
John Alexander v. Jonathan Nance
as 23-7071
Petitioner / Appellant:
JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
Respondent / Appellee:
JONATHAN NANCE, Warden, Tyger River Correctional Institution
Alexander v. Warden Tyger River
as 6:2023cv03145
Petitioner:
John Douglas Alexander
Respondent:
State of South Carolina
Defendant:
Jonathan Nance
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv01122
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv01123
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Bird v. USA
as 1:2023cv00141
Petitioner:
John Douglas Bird, Jr.
Respondent:
USA
Interested Party:
USA2255Group
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Jones v. Miller
as 1:2023cv00326
Petitioner:
John Douglas Jones, Jr.
Respondent:
Brian S. Miller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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.
