Cases 1 - 10 of 199
Barber v. Chatham et al
as 3:2023cv00178
Plaintiff:
Terry Lynn Barber
Defendant:
Judge Gerald W. Chatham, Sr., Bob Morris, Gordan Shaw and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Chambers v. Rice et al
as 3:2022cv00551
Plaintiff:
Stafford L. Chambers
Defendant:
Ray Rice, Hedges Portillio, Donald Jacksons and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shaw v. United States of America
as 3:2022cv00261
Plaintiff:
Santiago M. Shaw
Respondent:
Warden P. Boulet
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Hart v. Shaw et al
as 3:2022cv00024
Plaintiff:
Eugene Hart
Defendant:
Warden Frank Shaw and Rush Foundation Hospital
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Montalto v. Shaw et al
as 3:2020cv00822
Defendant:
Warden Frank Shaw, E.M.C.F., Officer Gracie and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Stephen Montalto
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Shaw
as 3:2020cv00778
Plaintiff:
Michael Jerome Williams
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Defendant:
Warden Frank Shaw
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Franklin v. Shaw et al
as 3:2020cv00649
Defendant:
Warden F. Shaw, Unknown Dice, Burl Cain and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Jackie D. Franklin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. Shaw
as 1:2020cv00299
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
David L. Davis
Defendant:
State of Mississippi and Frank Shaw
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Johnson v. Shaw
as 3:2020cv00239
Defendant:
Frank Shaw
Petitioner:
Vadell Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lee v. Chickasaw County Regional Correctional Facility et al
as 1:2020cv00118
Defendant:
Brand Hoffee, (Big Shaw) Nickname, Mr. Dallas and others
Plaintiff:
Sam W. Lee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
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.
