Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Momolu Sirleaf v. L. Edmonds
as 21-6825
Respondent / Appellee:
L. EDMONDS, Warden
Petitioner / Appellant:
PRIEST MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR.
Momolu Sirleaf v. Harold Clark
as 21-6598
Defendant / Appellee:
A. DAVID ROBINSON, LOUISE G. GOODE, CHAPLAIN HOLLENBAUGH and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PRIEST MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR.
Defendant:
D. Y. KINSLEY
Sirleaf v. Edmonds
as 3:2021cv00267
Petitioner:
Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr.
Respondent:
L. Edmonds
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Sirleaf v. Clarke et al
as 3:2019cv00710
Defendant:
Harold Clarke, Captain Wright, D.Y. Kinsley and others
Plaintiff:
Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sirleaf v. Amor Correctional Health Service$ Inc. et al
as 3:2019cv00711
Defendant:
Doctor Gore, Lynda Burrows, Does 1-7 and others
Plaintiff:
Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sirleaf v. Amor Correctional Health Service$ Inc. et al
as 8:2019cv02377
Defendant:
Doctor Gore, Lynda Burrows, Does 1-7 and others
Plaintiff:
Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Sirleaf v. Clarke et al
as 8:2019cv02379
Defendant:
Harold Clarke, Captain Wright, D.Y. Kinsley and others
Plaintiff:
Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Sirleaf, Jr v. Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc. et al
as 3:2019cv00529
Defendant:
Doe #7, Doe #3, Doe #2 and others
Plaintiff:
Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sirleaf v. Northam et al
as 3:2019cv00182
Defendant:
Mark Herring, United States, Roderick C. Young and others
Plaintiff:
Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sirleaf v. Northam et al
as 7:2019cv00239
Defendant:
Mark Herring, United States, Roderick C. Young and others
Plaintiff:
Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr.
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.
