Cases 1 - 10 of 26
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00099
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Watson v. NAPH Care et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2023cv00724
Plaintiff:
Andrew Houston Watson
Defendant:
NAPH Care, Montgomery County Jail, Lamarquis Singer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dinkle v. U.S. Marshal Service et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2023cv00217
Plaintiff:
Steven Joshua Dinkle
Defendant:
U.S. Marshal Service, Montgomery City Jail, Mac Sim Butler Detention Facility and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Montgomery v. Looney
as 1:2023cv00131
Plaintiff:
Luther Steven Montgomery
Defendant:
Darlene Looney, Kevin Nelson, Daniel Lawrence and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv01503
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Caudle v. U.S. Marshalls et al
as 5:2022cv01100
Plaintiff:
Allen Caudle
Defendant:
U.S. Marshalls and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00069
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cargill v. U.S. Marshals et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2021cv00285
Defendant:
U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice and U.S. Marshals
Plaintiff:
Quincetta Cargill and Quincetta Y. Cargill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hinson v. U.S. Marshals (INMATE 3)
as 2:2019cv01057
Plaintiff:
Darrell Hinson
Defendant:
U.S. Marshals
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cobble v. U.S. Government et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2019cv00891
Defendant:
CCA, U.S. Government, U.S. Marshal and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Eric Cobble
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
