Cases 1 - 10 of 35
Ravenscroft v. Office of the Fredrick County Comissions et al
as 3:2024cv00346
Plaintiff:
Gary Lee Ravenscroft, Jr
Defendant:
Office of the Fredrick County Comissions, Office of the Attorney for the Commonwealth, Office of the Attorney General and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00295
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rumph v. Colonial Heights Probation Office
as 2:2023cv00138
Plaintiff:
Ernest Rumph
Defendant:
Colonial Heights Probation Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rumph v. Virginia Probation Parole
as 2:2023cv00139
Plaintiff:
Ernest Rumph
Defendant:
Virginia Probation Parole
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rockett v. U.S. Probation Department
as 1:2022cv00664
Petitioner:
James Rockett
Respondent:
U.S. Probation Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Lockett v. Kiera et al
as 1:2022cv00069
Plaintiff:
Kyle Lockett
Defendant:
Ian Kiera and Probation & Parole
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Bivens Prisoner
Terry v. Chesterfield Probation & Parole et al
as 3:2021cv00491
Plaintiff:
Allen R. Terry
Defendant:
Chesterfield Probation & Parole and Commonwealth of Virginia
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lam v. Rockingham/Harrisonburg Circuit Court et al
as 7:2021cv00422
Plaintiff:
Steven Wesley Lam
Defendant:
Rockingham/Harrisonburg Circuit Court, District 39 Probation and Parol, District 12 Probation and Parol and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00303
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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
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.
