Cases 71 - 80 of 290
Anderson v. Cain et al
as 3:2014cv00341
Petitioner:
Chad Anderson
Respondent:
N. Burl Cain and James Caldwell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Price v. Leblanc et al
as 3:2014cv00333
Defendant:
N. Burl Cain, Department of Correction, Leslie Dupont and others
Plaintiff:
Cleothus O. Price
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Crum v. Cain et al
as 3:2014cv00319
Respondent:
N. Burl Cain and James Caldwell
Petitioner:
Earl Crum
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sanders v. Cain et al
as 3:2014cv00309
Defendant:
N. Burl Cain, Jason Collins, Unknown Cowan and others
Plaintiff:
Norman Sanders
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bosley v. Cain et al
as 3:2014cv00299
Petitioner:
Bruce Bosley
Respondent:
N. Burl Cain and James D. Caldwell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fortenberry v. Cain et al
as 3:2014cv00296
Respondent:
N. Burl Cain and James Caldwell
Petitioner:
Rodney Fortenberry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Moore v. Cain et al
as 3:2014cv00297
Respondent:
N. Burl Cain and Charles Caldwell
Petitioner:
Derek N. Moore
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bailey v. Leblanc
as 3:2014cv00271
Plaintiff:
Derrick Bailey
Defendant:
Trent Barton, Robert Butler, N. Burl Cain and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Austin v. Cain et al
as 3:2014cv00276
Petitioner:
Robae Austin
Respondent:
N. Burl Cain and James Caldwell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thompson v. Jindal et al
as 3:2014cv00250
Defendant:
N. Burl Cain, Bobby Jindal and James LeBlanc
Interested Party:
William Kline
Plaintiff:
Keith Thompson
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.
