Cases 1 - 10 of 94
David Atkins, Jr. v. Doctor Shamar
as 24-6352
Plaintiff:
DAVID ATKINS, JR.
Defendant:
DOCTOR SHAMAR, Facility Doctor, NURSE STITH, RN, MS. OSEGHALE, Food Service Supervisor and others
Defendant / Appellee:
WARDEN MILLER
Manzo-Hernandez v. Clarke et al
as 7:2024cv00013
Plaintiff:
Francisco Manzo-Hernandez
Defendant:
Harold W. Clarke, Chief of Security Headquarters, T.A. Glenn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stith v. Global Tel Link Corporation, et al.
as 3:2023cv00750
Plaintiff:
Raquel Stith
Defendant:
Warden Leu, Global Tel Link Corporation and CEO Deborah Alderson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stith v. Townsend et al
as 3:2023cv00676
Plaintiff:
Raquel Stith
Defendant:
Wesley Townsend and J.D. Fulk
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Phoenix v. Clarke et al
as 3:2023cv00615
Plaintiff:
Daniel William Phoenix
Defendant:
Harold W. Clarke, Dr. Mark Amonette, Steve Herrick and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Bivens Prisoner
Benjamin Stith v. R. Younce
as 23-6902
Petitioner / Appellant:
BENJAMIN L. STITH
Respondent / Appellee:
RODNEY W. YOUNCE, Warden
Stith v. Cabell
as 2:2023cv00426
Petitioner:
Thomas D. Stith
Respondent:
Beth Cabell and Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00233
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Stith v. Younce
as 7:2023cv00140
Petitioner:
Benjamin L. Stith
Respondent:
R. Younce
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stith v. Brunswick County
as 2:2023cv00013
Petitioner:
Michael Stith
Respondent:
Brunswick County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
