Cases 11 - 20 of 29
Ronald Sutton v. Commissioner, Alabama Departme, et al
as 14-11482
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RONALD SUTTON
Defendant - Appellee:
COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA and DANA M. BURNETT, Dietician to Corrections
Ronald Sutton v. USA
as 13-3818
Petitioner - Appellant:
RONALD SUTTON
Respondent - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Sutton v. Bentley et al
as 2:2012cv03570
Plaintiff:
Ronald Sutton
Defendant:
Robert Bentley, Luther Strange, Kim Tobias Thomas and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sutton v. Bentley et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2012cv00643
Plaintiff:
Ronald Sutton
Defendant:
Robert Bentley, Luther Strange, Kim Tobias Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sutton v. USA
as 1:2012cv00339
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Ronald Sutton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Sutton v. Allen et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2011cv00021
Plaintiff:
Ronald Sutton
Defendant:
State Dietician for A.D.O.C., Luther Strange and Kim Tobias Thomas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ronald Sutton v. Attorney General, State of AL, et al
as 10-15294
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RONALD SUTTON
Defendant - Appellee:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA, RICHARD F. ALLEN and STATE DIETICIAN, for the A.D.O.C.
Sutton v. Attorney General for the State of Alabama et al
as 2:2010cv02640
Plaintiff:
Ronald Sutton
Defendant:
Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Richard F. Allen and State Dietician
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sutton v. Allen et al
as 2:2008cv02012
Petitioner:
Ronald Sutton
Respondent:
Richard Allen and Billy Mitchem
Defendant:
Attorney General of Alabama
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Sutton v. Warden of West Carrol Detention Center
as 2:2008cv00596
Petitioner:
Ronald Sutton
Respondent:
Warden of West Carrol Detention Center
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
