Cases 1 - 10 of 22
Price v. Jackson
as 1:2020cv02141
Defendant:
Major Vaughn Jackson
Plaintiff:
Kenneth R. Price
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Curtis Jackson v. Carmelino Galang, et al
as 19-16879
Defendant:
EVALYN HOROWITZ, M.D. MCSP, DAVID SMILEY, CEO MCSP, NIKOLAJ WOLFSON, M.D. SJGH and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CURTIS VAUGHN JACKSON
Defendant / Appellee:
M. DATOR
Jackson v. Binkele et al
as 3:2018cv04098
Defendant:
K. Rawhoof, J. Makela, W. Schwarz and others
Plaintiff:
Curtis Vaughn Jackson, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Curtis Jackson v. Carmelino Galang, et al
as 18-15834
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CURTIS VAUGHN JACKSON
Defendant - Appellee:
CARMELINO L. GALANG, M.D. SJGH, NIKOLAJ WOLFSON, M.D. SJGH, DAVID SMILEY, CEO MCSP and others
Jackson v. Galang et al
as 2:2015cv01675
Plaintiff:
Curtis Vaughn Jackson, Jr.
Defendant:
Carmelino L. Galang, Nikolaj Wolfson, David Smiley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Thomas et al
as 4:2015cv00549
Petitioner:
Kenric La Vaughn Jackson, Sr
Respondent:
Brock Thomas, Tiffany Dupree and Danilo La Cayo
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jackson v. Stephens
as 4:2014cv01501
Petitioner:
Kenric La Vaughn Jackson, Sr
Respondent:
William Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Shannon v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
as 6:2012cv02938
Plaintiff:
Daniel A Shannon
Defendant:
South Carolina Department of Corrections, William Byars, Jon Ozmint and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Habeeb Malik v. James Sligh, Jr.
as 12-7576
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HABEEB ABDUL MALIK
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES E. SLIGH, JR., JANNITA GASTON, BERNARD MCKIE and others
Malik v. Sligh et al
as 2:2011cv01064
Plaintiff:
Habeeb Abdul Malik
Defendant:
James E Sligh, Jr, Jannita Gaston, Bernard McKie and others
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.
