Cases 1 - 10 of 78
McQueen v. Lamar
as 1:2024cv00346
Petitioner:
Roger McQueen
Respondent:
David Lamar
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McQueen v. Tucker et al
as 5:2024cv01241
Defendant:
Diana K, Katina Crossby and Ebony C Tucker
Plaintiff:
Marcus DeWayne McQueen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McQueen v. Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2024cv00292
Defendant:
Department of Corrections and Gang Members
Plaintiff:
Marcus Dewayne McQueen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
McQueen v. Shelby County Sheriff Department et al
as 2:2024cv01124
Defendant:
Chiquita Marbury and Shelby County Sheriff Department
Plaintiff:
Marcus Dewayne McQueen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McQueen v. State of Alabama et al
as 5:2024cv00987
Defendant:
Convicted Inmates, Staff Employees, State of Alabama and others
Plaintiff:
Marcus Dewayne McQueen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00353
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McQueen v. Washington et al
as 5:2024cv00722
Defendant:
Erika Washington, Alabama, State of, Ebony C. and others
Plaintiff:
Marcus Dewayne McQueen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McQueen v. Tucker et al
as 5:2024cv00638
Defendant:
Ebony C Tucker, Funeral Home and United States Government
Plaintiff:
Marcus DeWayne McQueen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McQueen v. Flowers (MAG+)
as 2:2024cv00205
Plaintiff:
Tenika McQueen
Defendant:
Felicia Franklin Flowers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00448
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
