Cases 41 - 50 of 231
James Peacock v. Lawrence Kelly
as 10-60110
Petitioner - Appellant:
JAMES PEACOCK, also known as Jimmy Peacock
Respondent - Appellee:
LAWRENCE KELLY
Stafford v. Kelly et al
as 4:2009cv00133
Plaintiff:
Roy Stafford
Defendant:
Lawrence Kelly, Emitt L. Sparkman, Gloria Perry and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Josh Davis v. Lawrence Kelly
as 10-60087
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOSH KIRK DAVIS
Respondent - Appellee:
LAWRENCE KELLY
Babb v. Kelly
as 3:2010cv00048
Plaintiff:
Johnny Robert Babb
Defendant:
Lawrence Kelly
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Paul Morgan v. State of Mississippi, et al
as 09-60959
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PAUL GRAHAME MORGAN
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, CHRISTOPHER EPPS and others
Colter v. Kelly et al
as 4:2009cv00170
Plaintiff:
Michael Herbert Colter
Defendant:
Lawrence Kelly, Robert Scott and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Epps et al
as 4:2009cv00126
Plaintiff:
Robert David Williams, Sr.
Defendant:
Christopher Epps, Lawrence Kelly, Patty Legg and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Turner v. Kelly et al
as 1:2009cv00270
Petitioner:
Clarris Turner
Respondent:
Lawrence Kelly and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Glidden v. Kelly et al
as 1:2009cv00760
Plaintiff:
Gary Allen Glidden
Defendant:
Lawrence Kelly and Robert Scott
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Harris v. Epps et al
as 4:2009cv00119
Plaintiff:
Stephen Harris
Defendant:
Christopher Epps, Lanette Jordan, Lawrence Kelly 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.
