Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Scott v. Adams et al
as 3:2024cv00192
Plaintiff:
Avren Scott
Defendant:
(Officer) Dylan Adams, (Officer) Gregory A. Stokes, (Officer) Dylan T. Wilson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stokes v. Garland et al
as 6:2023cv00206
Petitioner:
Anthony Darnell Stokes
Respondent:
Merrick B. Garland, Gary Swaney and United States Department of Justice
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Browder v. Madden et al
as 4:2023cv00044
Plaintiff:
Joe A. Browder, Jr.
Defendant:
Austin Madden, Sgt Allan Stokes, M. Dozier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Stokes v. USA
as 0:2023cv00054
Petitioner:
Jamaal A. Stokes
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00112
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Stokes v. Collins
as 3:2022cv00246
Petitioner:
Tykesha Stokes
Respondent:
Jerry Collins and Daniel Cameron
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stokes v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 5:2021cv00085
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff:
Joan Lagay Stokes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv00061
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 wt
Baird v. J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons LLC et al
as 3:2020cv00162
Respondent:
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons LLC
Petitioner:
Stokes Andrew Baird
Cause Of Action: 9 U.S.C. § 9
Goodrich v. Madisonville Police Department et al
as 4:2020cv00022
Defendant:
Scott Gibson, James Chamberlin, Daniel Cavanaugh and others
Plaintiff:
Anthony D. Goodrich, II
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
