Cases 1 - 10 of 19
ASHLEY v. SHEPPARD
as 5:2024cv00119
Plaintiff:
JUSTIN SINCALIR ASHLEY
Defendant:
STAN SHEPPARD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Waseem Daker v. Timothy Ward, et al
as 23-11445
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WASEEM DAKER
Defendant / Appellee:
TIMOTHY WARD, JACK KOON, ROBERT TOOLE and others
Waseem Daker v. Timothy Ward, et al
as 23-10630
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WASEEM DAKER
Defendant / Appellee:
TIMOTHY WARD, JACK KOON, ROBERT TOOLE and others
Muhammad v. Sheppard et al
as 3:2022cv00136
Plaintiff:
Furquan S. Muhammad
Defendant:
Stan Sheppard, Captain Scott and Warden of Montgomery State Prison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Muhammad v. Sheppard et al
as 1:2022cv03874
Plaintiff:
Furquan S. Muhammad
Defendant:
Regional Director Stan Sheppard, Captain Scott and Warden of Montgomery State Prison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Waseem Daker v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, et al
as 22-12369
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WASEEM DAKER
Defendant / Appellee:
COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JACK KOONS, Facilities Director, ROBERT TOOLE, Field Operations Director and others
VASS v. WHITTINGHAM et al
as 5:2022cv00243
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER AARON VASS and CALVIN JACKSON
Defendant:
WARDEN LAWRENCE WHITTINGHAM, COMMISSIONER TIMOTHY WARD, ANN BOWEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
In re: Waseem Daker
as 22-11983
Petitioner:
In re: WASEEM DAKER
Respondent:
COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JACK KOON, ROBERT TOOLE and others
Daker v. Ward et al
as 6:2021cv00003
Defendant:
Ms. [FNU] Mosely, Dr. Sharon Lewis, Mr. [FNU] Whitfield and others
Plaintiff:
Waseem Daker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Larry Poole v. Stan Sheppard
as 15-14511
Petitioner - Appellant:
LARRY JAMES POOLE
Respondent - Appellee:
STAN SHEPPARD
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.
