Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Rucker v. Hinds County Public Defender's Office et al
as 3:2022cv00483
Plaintiff:
Mario T. Rucker
Defendant:
Hinds County Public Defender's Office, Attorney Alison O. Kelly and Attorney Michael Henry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hearn v. State of Mississippi
as 3:2022cv00469
Plaintiff:
Michael Henry Hearn
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hearn v. MTC
as 3:2022cv00470
Plaintiff:
Michael Henry Hearn
Defendant:
MTC
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hearn v. State of Mississippi, et al
as 1:2020cv00097
Respondent:
State of Mississippi and Marshall Turner
Petitioner:
Michael Henry Hearn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hearn v. State of Mississippi
as 3:2020cv00023
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Michael Henry Hearn
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hearn v. Epps et al
as 3:2015cv00057
Plaintiff:
Michael Henry Hearn
Defendant:
Christopher B. Epps and Cecil McCrory
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hearn v. State of Mississippi et al
as 4:2013cv00097
Plaintiff:
Michael Henry Hearn
Defendant:
Raymond Byd
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hearn v. State of Mississippi et al
as 3:2013cv01023
Plaintiff:
Michael Henry Hearn
Defendant:
Raymond Byd
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hearn v. Epps et al
as 3:2011cv00474
Plaintiff:
Michael Henry Hearn
Defendant:
Christopher B. Epps, David Petrie and Christi Scott
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hearn v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2008cv00613
Plaintiff:
Michael Henry Hearn
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Corrections, Unknown Walker, Frederick L. Bearry and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
