Cases 31 - 40 of 47
Davidson v. Parker et al
as 1:2015cv00245
Plaintiff:
Kodi Davidson
Defendant:
Rob Parker, Hubert Davis and Joseph Cooley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hubbard v. Ursery et al
as 1:2015cv01181
Plaintiff:
Zane Hubbard
Defendant:
Ursery, Tony Toy, Paul Bender and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Payne v. Bryant et al
as 1:2015cv00168
Plaintiff:
David E. Payne
Defendant:
Phil Bryant, Marshall Fisher, Raymond T. Byrd and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Eddy v. Mingo et al
as 2:2014cv00028
Plaintiff:
Roy Dean Eddy
Defendant:
Derrick Mingo, Anthony Compton and Joseph Cooley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Garrison et al v. Cox et al
as 3:2014cv00166
Defendant:
Larry G Cox , Antonio Johnson , Fred Washington and others
Plaintiff:
Antonio Garrison , Joseph Cooley , Daron Harris and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wilson v. Epps et al
as 1:2014cv00017
Plaintiff:
Thomas Randall Wilson
Defendant:
Christopher Epps, Gloria Perry, Mike Hatten and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Darryl Mixon v. Christopher Epps, et al
as 13-60619
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DARRYL MIXON
Defendant - Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RONALD KING, Superintendant, J. KIRKWOOD, Mailroom Supervisor and others
Newell v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2013cv00115
Plaintiff:
James C. Newell, Jr.
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Corrections, Christopher B Epps, Ron King and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hinton v. King et al
as 2:2013cv00100
Plaintiff:
John Tad Hinton
Defendant:
Ronald King, Theresa Seabrook, Barnes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hinton v. King et al
as 1:2013cv00528
Plaintiff:
John Tad Hinton
Defendant:
Ronald King , Theresa Seabrook , Barnes 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.
