Cases 1 - 10 of 21
Proffit v. Dotson
as 7:2024cv00232
Petitioner:
Richard M. Proffit
Respondent:
Chadwick Dotson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davis v. Proffit et al
as 3:2021cv00142
Plaintiff:
Christopher K Davis
Defendant:
Chris Proffit, Jefferson County Jail, Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Scott v. Mcclung et al
as 7:2019cv00570
Defendant:
Judge Hines, Boyd, Judge Hamilton and others
Plaintiff:
Robert Bradley Scott
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ellison et al v. Proffit et al
as 4:2016cv00847
Plaintiff:
Michelle Ellison and David Ellison
Defendant:
Brian Proffit, John Does, Glen Kirby and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOLLY v. BUTTS et al
as 1:2014cv01337
Defendant:
BOLT, BURDINE, K. BUTTS and others
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM HOLLY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
David Spencer v. Bradfield, et al
as 13-14645
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID R SPENCER
Defendant - Appellee:
BRADFIELD, SIS, Lt., FCC Coleman USP I, PROFFIT, SIS, Lt., FCC Coleman USP I, ADAMS, Lieutenant, FCC Coleman USP I and others
Hoeck v. Miklich et al
as 1:2013cv00206
Plaintiff:
David B. Hoeck
Defendant:
Lance Miklich, Ted Stenzel, Darryl Proffit and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pettigrew v. Zavaras, et al
as 12-1146
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RYAN ALEXANDER PETTIGREW
Defendant - Appellee:
ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, Executive Director, SUSAN JONES, Warden, LARRY REED, Warden and others
Thomas v. Daniel et al
as 3:2012cv00101
Plaintiff:
Devandal Thomas
Defendant:
Williams E Daniel, Michael A Teston, Robert D. Hancock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Proffit v. State of Wyoming, et al
as 12-8000
Petitioner - Appellant:
KENT PROFFIT
Respondent - Appellee:
STATE OF WYOMING and WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE PENITENTIARY WARDEN, EDDIE WILSON
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.
