Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Anderson v. Riley et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2022cv00158
Plaintiff:
Michael Dewayne Anderson
Defendant:
Fernetta Riley, Lt. Gartland, Charles Carroll and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Anderson v. Mobile County District and Circuit Court et al
as 1:2021cv00253
Defendant:
Southern District Court of Alabama, Mobile County District and Circuit Court, Mobile County District Attorney's Office and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Dewayne Anderson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Anderson v. Mobile County District and Circuit Court et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2021cv00259
Plaintiff:
Michael Dewayne Anderson
Defendant:
Mobile County Circuit Court, Southern District Court of Alabama, Mobile County District and Circuit Court and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Anderson v. Ivey et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2019cv00412
Defendant:
Walter Myers, Board of Pardons and Paroles, Kay Ivey and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Dewayne Anderson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Anderson v. Thomas
as 1:2014cv00046
Petitioner:
Michael Dewayne Anderson
Respondent:
Willie Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
In re: Michael Anderson
as 13-14408
Petitioner:
In re: MICHAEL DEWAYNE ANDERSON
Successive Habeas Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Michael Anderson v. Michael Youngpeter, et al
as 13-10688
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL DEWAYNE ANDERSON
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL A. YOUNGPETER, CHARLIE GRADDICK, P. J. WELCH and others
Michael Anderson v. Governor of Alabama, et al
as 12-15213
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL DEWAYNE ANDERSON
Defendant - Appellee:
GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, CALLIE T. DIETZ and CHARLIE GRADDICK
Anderson et al v. Youngpeter et al
as 1:2012cv00645
Plaintiff:
Michael Dewayne Anderson and Reginald DeWayne Jones
Defendant:
Michael A. Youngpeter, Charlie Graddick, P.J. Welch 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.
