Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Levac v. Haney et al
as 6:2024cv06047
Plaintiff:
Daniel Levac
Defendant:
Jail Administrator Sarah Haney, Sheriff Travis Hill, Sheriff Garrett and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Perkins, Troy v. Chippewa County Sheriffs Dept. et al
as 3:2023cv00393
Plaintiff:
Troy Lee Perkins
Defendant:
Chippewa County Sheriffs Dept., Sheriff Travis Hakes, Capt. Modl and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Wimberly
as 8:2023cv00354
Plaintiff:
Robert Williams
Defendant:
Deputy Sheriff Travis Wimberly
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ef Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation (Excess Force)
Phillip Sterling, Jr. v. Travis Hill
as 22-2089
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Phillip Jay Sterling, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
Sheriff Travis Hill, Pike County Arkansas
Sterling v. Hill
as 6:2022cv06053
Plaintiff:
Phillip Jay Sterling, Jr.
Defendant:
Sheriff Travis Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Witten v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety et al
as 5:2022cv00007
Plaintiff:
Carey Jason Witten
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Adams County Sheriff, Adams County, Mississippi and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Rankins v. Haney et al
as 6:2021cv06117
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Lynn Rankins
Defendant:
Jail Administrator Sarah Haney, Sheriff Travis Hill and Jason McDonald
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sterling v. Hill
as 6:2021cv06115
Plaintiff:
Phillip Jay Sterling, Jr.
Defendant:
Sheriff Travis Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hill, Jr. v. Haney et al
as 6:2021cv06101
Defendant:
Michael Brown, Jail Administrator Sarah Haney and Sheriff Travis Hill
Plaintiff:
David Leroy Hill, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sterling v. Hill
as 6:2021cv06093
Petitioner:
Phillip Jay Sterling, Jr.
Defendant:
Sheriff Travis Hill
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
