Cases 1 - 10 of 75
Rice v. USA
as 4:2024cv00383
Petitioner:
Antonio Lamont Rice
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
McGown v. Gardner et al
as 4:2024cv00215
Plaintiff:
Sedric Lamont McGown
Defendant:
Ann E Gardner and Willard Proctor, Jr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Eubanks et al v. Dawson et al
as 4:2024cv00151
Plaintiff:
Antoine Lamont Eubanks and Erin Nicole Jackson
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jeffery Elenbaas, Patrick Thessing and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2271 Federal Tort Claims Act
Vann v. Carroll et al
as 4:2024cv00015
Plaintiff:
Lamont Clayton Vann
Defendant:
Brandon Carroll, J Bivens, J Ogbozor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Reynolds v. Dennis et al
as 4:2023cv04076
Plaintiff:
Carlos Lamont Reynolds
Defendant:
Ex-Chief of Police Orlando Dennis and The City of Stamps, Arkansas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hill v. Payne et al
as 4:2023cv00155
Plaintiff:
Adam Hill
Defendant:
Dexter Payne, Aundrea Culclager, Benny Magnus and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fairchild v. Crancer et al
as 4:2022cv01280
Plaintiff:
Freddie Lamont Fairchild
Defendant:
Ryan Crancer, Hunter Middleton, Darryl Sanders and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Askew v. Straw et al
as 4:2022cv01004
Plaintiff:
Charles Askew
Defendant:
Cheryle Askew, Lamont Straw, Keith Humphrey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Slocum v. Gibson et al
as 4:2022cv00555
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Lamont Slocum
Defendant:
James Gibson, Floria Washington and Brandon Carroll
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Spencer v. USA
as 4:2022cv00666
Petitioner:
Jewel Lamont Spencer
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
