Cases 1 - 10 of 472
King v. Crabtree et al
as 5:2023cv00697
Petitioner:
Ronald King
Respondent:
Warden Crabtree and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
King v. Hudson et al
as 1:2020cv00104
Respondent:
United States of America and Warden Christopher Rivers
Petitioner:
Stephen J.H. King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
King v. Gordy et al
as 2:2018cv01905
Petitioner:
James Lorenza King
Defendant:
Attorney General State of Alabama and Christopher Gordy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
King v. Jones et al
as 4:2014cv01349
Petitioner:
Edward Lavar King
Respondent:
Kenneth Jones and The Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
King v. Holder et al
as 4:2013cv00441
Petitioner:
Kevern King
Respondent:
Eric Holder, Jr, Janet Napolitano, Philip Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Spencer v. Bentley et al
as 7:2013cv00090
Petitioner:
James Edward Spencer
Respondent:
Robert Bentley, Bob Riley, Don Siegelman and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
King v. Holder et al
as 4:2012cv03421
Petitioner:
Kevern King
Respondent:
Eric Holder, Jr , Janet Napolitano , Philip Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Wells v. McKinney et al
as 7:2012cv00817
Plaintiff:
Dedrick Lashon Wells
Defendant:
Eugene Reese McKinney, Sheila Taylor, Sherly Miller and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 2
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
King v. Jones et al
as 4:2011cv04225
Petitioner:
Edward Lavar King
Respondent:
Kenneth Jones and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Pryor v. King
as 4:2011cv03867
Petitioner:
Edwin Pierce Pryor
Respondent:
Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
