Cases 21 - 30 of 45
Singleton v. State of South Carolina Dept. of Corr.
as 2:2012cv02541
Petitioner:
Michael Singleton
Respondent:
Warden of Evans Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv02504
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Singleton v. Eagleton
as 1:2012cv04079
Petitioner:
Michael Singleton
Respondent:
Warden Eagleton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
A.K.A. JUSTICE v. THE CRIMINAL SYSTEMS OF N.J., S.C. et al
as 2:2012cv02662
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL SINGLETON
Defendant:
THE CRIMINAL SYSTEMS OF N.J., S.C. and THE P.T.S. EXTRADITION COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Singleton v. State of South Carolina Dept. of Corr.
as 1:2012cv00792
Petitioner:
Michael Singleton
Respondent:
State of South Carolina Dept. of Corr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv06386
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
King v. Wollner et al
as 1:2011cv02828
Plaintiff:
Graham J. King
Defendant:
Ron Wollner , Computer Data Source, Inc. and Michael Singleton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Walter Cummings v. Heyns, et al
as 11-1795
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WALTER CUMMINGS
Defendant - Appellee:
DANIEL HEYNS, SHIRLEE HARRY, Warden, MICHAEL SINGLETON and others
Cummings #417330 v Caruso, et al
as 1:2011cv00434
Plaintiff:
Walter Cummings #417330
Defendant:
Patricia Caruso, Shirlee Harry, Michael Singleton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Singleton v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, The
as 2:2011cv00676
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Corrections, The, Kirkland R&E Institute and Warden Mackey
Plaintiff:
Michael Singleton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
