Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Bryant Parker v. Director of the Virginia Dept. of Corrections
as 23-6361
Petitioner / Appellant:
BRYANT MATTHEW PARKER
Respondent / Appellee:
DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Hobart Parker v. Barbara Decatur
as 22-7264
Plaintiff / Appellant:
HOBART MATTHEW PARKER
Defendant / Appellee:
BARBARA DECATUR, Stafford County Court Clerk, J. M. TAYMAN, Stafford County Deputy Court Clerk, CHARLES JETT, Retired Stafford County Sheriff and others
Parker v. Lake County Montana et al
as 9:2022cv00175
Plaintiff:
Matthew Parker
Defendant:
Lake County Montana, Bill Barron, Steve Stanley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lee v. Tuscaloosa County Administrator et al
as 7:2021cv01116
Plaintiff:
Terry Eugene Lee, Jr.
Defendant:
Tuscaloosa County Administrator, Tuscaloosa County Sheriff's Office, Matthew Parker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parker v. Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2020cv00807
Respondent:
The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia and Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
Petitioner:
Bryant Matthew Parker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Parker v. Decatur et al
as 2:2019cv00478
Defendant:
J. M. Tayman, Charles Jett, Robert B. Goodall and others
Plaintiff:
Hobart Matthew Parker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parker v. Decatur et al
as 7:2019cv00617
Defendant:
J. M. Tayman, Charles Jett, Robert B. Goodall and others
Plaintiff:
Hobart Matthew Parker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parker v. Ignasias et al
as 1:2014cv01510
Plaintiff:
Bryant Matthew Parker
Defendant:
Ignasias, Wright and Goode
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Orlando Vasquez v. Matthew Parker, et al
as 11-3859
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Orlando Ray Vasquez
Defendant - Appellee:
Matthew Parker and John Murphy
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.
