Cases 41 - 50 of 56
Toomer v. Nelson et al
as 1:2020cv00374
Plaintiff:
Jesse Carl Toomer
Defendant:
Aramark Food Services, Mike Ezell, Tyrone Nelson and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McCullum v. Ezell
as 1:2020cv00339
Plaintiff:
Cedric Jerome McCullum
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Defendant:
Mike Ezell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ward v. Beesley et al
as 1:2020cv00255
Plaintiff:
James Garland Ward
Defendant:
John Doe, H. Beesley and Mike Ezell
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Walsh v. Jackson County et al
as 1:2020cv00236
Defendant:
John Does, Bruce Evan Adult Detention Center, Jackson County and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Adam Delano Walsh
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McGrath v. Trauth et al
as 1:2020cv00237
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Defendant:
Jessica Pleasant, Mike Ezell, Unknown Nelson and others
Plaintiff:
John T. McGrath
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kibby et al v. Ezell et al
as 1:2020cv00184
Plaintiff:
Shelly N. Kibby and William G. Kibby
Defendant:
Jackson County Sheriff's Dept., Corey A. Henderson and Mike Ezell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Meadows v. Jackson County et al
as 1:2020cv00074
Defendant:
Jackson County, Micky Powell, John Does 1-10 and others
Plaintiff:
Wayne Meadows
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Pickens v. Moman et al
as 1:2019cv00948
Defendant:
Maria Moman and Mike Ezell
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Rockie Dural Pickens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Ruse v. Jackson County et al
as 3:2019cv00639
Defendant:
Sheriff Mike Ezell, Officer Fnu Weeks, Officer Cendall Huynh and others
Plaintiff:
Kayla Rush
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Henry Craig v. Reuben Fountain, et al
as 17-60243
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HENRY LEE CRAIG
Defendant - Appellee:
REUBEN FOUNTAIN and MIKE EZELL
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.
