Cases 21 - 30 of 53
Gabriel Gonzalez v. Kendez Archer, et al
as 17-11290
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GABRIEL GONZALEZ
Defendant - Appellee:
KENDEZ ARCHER, MD, CONNIE COPELAND, RYLES, Health Services Administrator and others
Van Pelt v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2016cv01849
Petitioner:
Kim Van Pelt
Respondent:
Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 5
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Van Pelt v. Arpaio et al
as 2:2016cv03500
Defendant:
Joseph M Arpaio, Fulton Brock, Donald Stapley and others
Plaintiff:
Arvin Jevon Van Pelt
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Russell Tinsley v. Merrill Main, et al
as 16-3320
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUSSELL TINSLEY, and on behalf of residents at STU in similar situation problems, et
Defendant - Appellee:
MERRILL MAIN, STU Clinical Director, SHERRY YATES, Department of Corrections, SHANTAY BRAIM ADAMS, Unit Director and others
Pelts v. Hamilton
as 3:2016cv03149
Plaintiff:
Donnell Pelts
Defendant:
Hamilton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pelts v. Hamiton et al
as 3:2016cv03111
Plaintiff:
Donnell Pelts
Defendant:
Hamiton, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pelts v. Hamiton et al
as 1:2016cv04347
Plaintiff:
Donnell Pelts
Defendant:
Lt. Hamiton, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pelts v. Boyer et al
as 1:2016cv04348
Plaintiff:
Donnell Pelts
Defendant:
Seg Boyer, Lt Nickerson, Lee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GONZALEZ v. ARCHER et al
as 5:2016cv00034
Plaintiff:
GABRIEL GONZALEZ
Defendant:
KENDES ARCHER, CONNIE COPELAND, RYLES and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Owaiian M. Jones v. William Bradhurst
as 15-7848
Plaintiff - Appellant:
OWAIIAN M. JONES
Defendant - Appellee:
WILLIAM BRADHURST, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE OF ROANOKE CITY, LANCE HALE and others
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.
