Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Boutte v. Miller et al
as 1:2013cv01095
Plaintiff:
James A. Boutte
Defendant:
Phil D. Miller and Kevin Hensley
Hensley v. Roden
as 13-1147
Petitioner - Appellant:
KEVIN HENSLEY
Respondent - Appellee:
GARY RODEN, Superintendent, MCI Norfolk
Castleberry v. Miller et al
as 1:2012cv03689
Plaintiff:
Donovan Castleberry
Defendant:
Phil D. Miller, Stan Copeland, M. O. Harper and others
Castleberry v. Miller et al
as 1:2012cv03637
Plaintiff:
Donovan Castleberry
Defendant:
Phil D. Miller, M. O. Harper, Kevin Hensley and others
Hensley v. Roden
as 1:2010cv12133
Plaintiff:
Kevin Hensley
Defendant:
Gary Roden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bagley v. Harper et al
as 1:2010cv03211
Plaintiff:
Christopher Shane Bagley
Defendant:
Harper, Kevin Hensley and Bucky Attaway
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Turpen et al v. Douglas County et al
as 1:2010cv01815
Plaintiff:
Tommy E. Turpen, Jr. and David Logan Turpen
Defendant:
Douglas County, Tom Worthan, Freddie Ashmon, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kemp v. Harper et al
as 1:2009cv02044
Plaintiff:
Johnny C. Kemp, Jr.
Defendant:
M. O. Harper, Douglas County Jail, Phil D. Miller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Type:
Prisoner Petitions
Lee v. Douglas County Sheriffs Department et al
as 1:2008cv02280
Plaintiff:
Rebel Keith Lee
Defendant:
Douglas County Sheriffs Department, Phil D. Miller, Stan Copeland and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Farahani et al v. Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts
as 1:2007cv10251
Plaintiff:
Ghodrat Farahani, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Ghodrat Farahani
Defendant:
Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts, Bristol County Superior Court for the States of Massachusetts, Appeals Court for the State of Massachusetts and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 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.
