Cases 1 - 10 of 38
Dillard v. Etherly et al
as 2:2024cv00102
Plaintiff:
Aaron T Dillard
Defendant:
Marcus Etherly, Kenyon Randle and Monicka Branscomb
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dillard v. Etherly et al
as 4:2024cv00453
Plaintiff:
Aaron T Dillard
Defendant:
Marcus Etherly, Kenyon Randle and Monicka Branscomb
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chaney v. Davis et al
as 4:2024cv00399
Plaintiff:
James Robert Chaney
Defendant:
Branden Davis, Dale Reed, Antonio D Johnson, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ellis v. Randle et al
as 4:2024cv00182
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Ellis
Defendant:
Kenyon Randle and Does Lieutenant, E.A.R.U. Max; Mental Health Doctor, Central Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moore v. Randle et al
as 4:2024cv00125
Plaintiff:
Terrence Moore
Defendant:
Kenyon Randle, Paul Harris, Etherly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ellis v. Randle et al
as 2:2024cv00011
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Ellis
Defendant:
Kenyon Randle and Does Lieutenant, E.A.R.U. Max; Mental Health Doctor, Central Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lamar v. Randle et al
as 4:2024cv00017
Plaintiff:
Anthony D Lamar
Defendant:
Kenyon Randle, Todd Ball, Joe Profiri and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hamner v. Straughn et al
as 2:2023cv00195
Plaintiff:
Charles Hamner
Defendant:
Charles Straughn, Richard Todd Ball, Natasha Penn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lewis v. Hargraves
as 4:2022cv01230
Plaintiff:
Kenyon Jett Lewis
Defendant:
B Hargraves
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Terry v. Payne et al
as 2:2022cv00170
Plaintiff:
Jarell D Terry
Defendant:
Dexter Payne, William Straughn, Gaylon Lay and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
